Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:25, 30 August 2013

• 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning

User:Enkyo2 continuously violating WP:SELFREF

My last ANI on this was poorly put together, so I might as well just start anew. I have drawn Enkyo2's attention to the relevant policy several times, but he is continuing to protest my removal of his commentary on Misplaced Pages policy from the article space. I think he doesn't understand why this is problematic. Could someone help me explain it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is still clearly a content issue, just like it was a few days ago when multiple editors told you the same thing here. Look for WP:3O or another form of dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Two users expressed their POV that it was a content issue. This time I have provided evidence that this user, despite being told multiple times what the policy is, is continuing to dismiss it. It has nothing to do with content, since none of the edits concerned affect article content. The problem is with Enkyo2 adding references to Misplaced Pages policy to the article space and refusing to desist even when pointed in the direction of the relevant policy. I was not given a chance in the last thread to respond to the question regarding what kind of admin action I want. I want Enkyo2 to stop assuming bad faith on my part, or for someone in authority whose good faith he HAS TO assume to tell him the same thing I have. No one has thus far disagreed with me on the substance here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone should definitely help this user out on the matter. (I would, since I've worked a lot in self-referential parts of the 'pedia, but I'm a bit busy.) However, he's clearly not the only one doing this. I've noticed several articles where there's a blacklisted link and it says in the footnote "(link not allowed by Misplaced Pages)"—there's one on Nate Silver that I've been meaning to fix for ages. I.e., this isn't an incident, since it's a fairly common mistake. Maybe the Help Desk or the Teahouse would be a better place to find assistance in explaining it? — PinkAmpers& 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri, there are multiple interpretations of what is and is not acceptable under WP:SELFREF (which, by the way, is a guideline, not a policy), and your complaint appears to be not about an editor's behavior but about content being put in an article--that makes this a content dispute. Based on my brief skim of the diff you gave in your first ANI posting on this, that user's edit does not look egregiously out of line (pronunciation notes are not uncommon in articles), so instead of coming to the drama board you should be looking for a reasonable consensus.

Now on to you. Your own behavior in this dispute, as far as I can tell (I have not taken time to dig up all the relevant diffs and history), has not been above reproach. You started a frivolous ANI thread about article content, where you accused your opponent of not speaking English, when that was nowhere close to true. The four complaints that you raised in that thread were all content concerns, and you never explained the issue (which I saw you mention on the user's talk page, not in ANI) of the clarity of the user's talk page posts, so I have no idea which thing you are actually upset about. Finally, as far as I can tell, User talk:Enkyo2#"Jimmu" and others is the only place where you have attempted to have a discussion with the user about that issue (the other diffs you provided are a revert of his edit--reverts are not discussion--and your own ANI thread). This ANI posting is completely premature. The user in question had already responded to you at his talk page before you posted this second ANI, and yet you chose to return to the drama board rather than actually respond to the user. Why don't you try to go resolve this content dispute in a constructive way? rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The user in question responded on his talk page, but the response essentially said "I don't care what the guideline is, and I'm not going to listen to you". There may be multiple interpretations of SELFREF, but surely inserting one's own controversial interpretation of a Misplaced Pages style guideline into an article in order to undermine an ongoing RM is near the bottom of potentially acceptable SELFREFS... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, since you have made absolutely no effort to explain the context of this disagreement, why should I (or any other editor here) just take your word that your view is right and the other editor's is wrong? Secondly, you still have not indicated how this is anything other than a content dispute. ANI is not a venue for solving content disputes; people have already given you links to appropriate venues. Continuing this discussion here would be a waste of time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how hard it is to edit English Misplaced Pages on a Japanese smart phone? I have mentioned a couple of times in the last few days, including here on ANI, that my computer is in bad shape and I can only post from my phone. I have made a TREMENDOUS effort to explain the context. Enkyo2 didn't like my proposed move of Emperor Jimmu, and he responded by posting a note in the first line of the article that expresses his personal interpretation of a guideline that myself and a number of other users including In ictu oculi clearly interpreted the opposite way. This edit did not alter the content of the article, but clearly represents an attempt to bring a dispute about style guidelines into the article space. I can't take it to DRN because there is no content dispute. The closest thing to a content dispute is the original RM (which is still open) which only concerns the spelling of one word. But my problem is Enkyo2's way of dealing with this, which is posting comments that belong on the talk page in the article itself. I am sorry if I sound hostile, but it's NOT fun trying to deal with issues like this exclusively from a phone that keeps trying to convert everything I type into Japanese. (That's also why it's difficult to post a full record of diffs.) Seriously. The other issue I'm dealing with at the moment is an obvious sockpuppet/vandal/POV-pusher, and I wasn't even able to open the SPI myself... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on what you just said, this is absolutely a content dispute. A footnote is article content; if you guys disagree about a footnote, you are disagreeing about article content. Your claim that Enkyo2 refuses to discuss the issue is bogus, because he had already responded to your discussion attempt before you opened this unnecessary thread. Let me say it again (this is the last time I will say it): this is a content dispute.

Also, your problems about your phone are exactly that: your problems. It is frankly ridiculous that you expect someone to take administrative action against some other editor because you can't find a practical way to edit. (Ever think to try a library or internet café?) Likewise, the fact that you're dealing with an unrelated sock is totally irrelevant to this dispute. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Either you're misreading what Hijiri is saying, or you're deliberately making things up. Claiming that Hijiri is asking for administrative action because they're editing from their phone is ludicrous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. He's explaining why he's having problems with diffs (and his comment about the SPI was an aside - not unusual here). I will say that I looked at the comment about a blocked link at Nate Silver. A good example of why such comments are a bad idea - the link isn't blocked, but does lead to a parody page now (hijacked?). Self-references to Misplaced Pages are a bad idea - they are similar to using Misplaced Pages as a source, which we don't do. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Still none of you have said anything to even remotely suggest that this is anything other than a content dispute. No administrator action is needed, and the discussion does not belong here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Rjanag's insistence that I can go to a library to edit Misplaced Pages shows an ignorance of Japanese public libraries. Internet cafes are also rare in my area. But I'm in one now, thankfully. The dodgy browser randomly closing tabs I have open is not helpful, though.
2. This is not a content dispute. Posting a note in the article space that doesn't change the content of the article in any substantial way, but misrepresents current Misplaced Pages guidelines and serves to undermine an ongoing RM is not a content issue.
3. This is not a content dispute. I raised a number of issues with a user's behaviour, which have been consistently ignored by Rjanag (and no one else, despite his above claiming that "multiple editors told you the same thing"). This included (a) the aforementioned posting of a problematic note in order to undermine an RM I had just started; (b) using the passive voice past simple ("A note was added") instead of simply saying "I have added a note", thus initially misleading me into thinking that it was added according to consensus at some earlier date, rather than a deliberate and unilateral edit that he had just made; (c) this isn't the first time Enkyo has been challenged for refusing to use plain English on talk pages -- he has improved, but there's still a way to go in my opinion; (d) !voting against the RM solely as "revenge" against me for deleting said note, despite previously indicating that he would not !vote until more people got involved (which no one did); (e) posting a large amount of peripherally-related text both in the RM and on his own talk page (I'm pretty sure this is also something for which he's been taken to task before); (f) closely following on my heels to a bunch of articles.
4. Rjanag, do you honestly think if I posted the above 6 complaints on DRN they would take it seriously as a content dispute? Or do you think they would send me back here because I clearly have a problem with user behaviour?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Another (much lesser) problem. In the past, Enkyo has cited questionable, very old primary sources as references for things that happened after they were written. I don't know if he is still doing this, and his 2007 edits wouldn't be an issue, if he didn't come back two days ago and re-format the reference, without noticing the problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Information added to article space (regardless of whether it's in a footnote or the main text) is content. Hence, content dispute. WP:SELFREF is a content guideline, not a behavioral guideline.

As for the rest of the diffs you just posted, to be perfectly honest I have not looked at them. If there were legitimate behavioral problems with the user's conduct at talk pages, it should not have taken you this long to mention them. Your original complaint was about the wording of content the user put in articles, and that issue is obviously a content dispute. If there was a behavioral issue, you should not have wasted days making irrelevant complaints about content issues. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

My original complaint was that, having posted questionable material in an article, in problematic response to my RM, Enkyo refused to use plain English on the talk page to discuss it, instead posting vaguely related gibberish. He's been called out for this in ArbCom cases before, so your refusal to take it seriously now is just plain baffling. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, your original complaint claimed the user was posting non-English in article space, which was not at all true. You also claimed that the user wouldn't respond to requests for discussion, which again was not true because the user had already responded before you brought this ANI (and instead of engaging in discussion, you came here to open this thread). If you expected me to take previous arbitration cases into account, you should have made at least an ounce of effort to provide links or diffs. I cannot read your mind. You have made barely any effort to provide explanation or background about any of the issues you are trying to bring here. This whole thing is extremely unproductive. If you want a productive solution, people have already told you where you can find content dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, go back and read it. I complained that he was posting problematic material in the article space, and that I was unable to discuss it with him constructively because he refuses to use plain English on the talk page. My header was poorly worded and tongue-in-cheek, but I have since made it very clear that when I said he "needs to start speaking English", I meant I want someone to help me convince him to be coherent in his talk page comments. I said he wouldn't respond to me in a reasonable, coherent manner (his response implied he hadn't even clicked on the link to SELFREF I provided, as he didn't refer to it, and some of his later comments had absolutely nothing to do with the argument). I figured going back and mining ancient diffs was a little off-topic -- I expected you to look at the diffs I did provide to see Enkyo making a !vote and then problematic self-withdrawal on one RM and posting another RM in which he was the OP but his incoherent argument made it seem like he actually wanted the page to stay where it is. I still don't want to go to DRN with this, because I already have gone there with a user conduct issue, and while DRN took me seriously the other user in the dispute didn't and I wound up taking it to ANI within a few days. This is not a content issue, it's a user behaviour issue, and you are the only one who has been interpreting it otherwise. GiantSnowman said the diff I presented was clearly problematic, Kudpung asked me what exactly I was looking for (at which point you closed before I got a chance to respond, with a sudden insistence that mine was a content dispute that belongs on DRN), PinkAmpersand said someone should help me, Lukeno and Dougweller both said you were wrong in ignoring what I was saying. No one has said this should not be dealt with here other than you (Kudpung hadn't seen enough evidence, which I admit was my fault), and given how many people have clearly disagreed with you on this I don't see why you continue to ignore all the evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for Esoglou

I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Esoglou from the subject of homosexuality. The user has demonstrated a persistent intent to push a political agenda (and, having been topic-banned from abortion on two separate occasions for POV-pushing, isn't a stranger to this concept). Most recently, this has manifested itself in adding, three times in the past two days ( ), the claim that homosexuality poses a "widespread threat to life and health". However, the problem goes back much further and indicates that Esoglou's primary goal is not to follow WP policy or improve articles but rather to promote his personal opinions about homosexuality and to make the Catholic Church look good (see eg. this edit, where he wrote a lovely little speech about the real reason the Holy See opposed a particular resolution). He has a persistent habit of doing his own "analysis" of reliable sources when they contradict his personal views ( convoluted language which he explained here is intended to undermine the sources, "a word that does not appear in the document"), of otherwise engaging in original research (eg. ), and of adding frivolous citation tags for reliably sourced facts with which he personally disagrees (eg. , , ). I used to think that he was not a native English speaker and that his misrepresentation of sources proc eeded from a non-native speaker's misreading, but since he states he does speak English, I have to conclude that edits like this are deliberate misrepresentation rather than accidental. This is only a small selection in a long pattern; I would be happy to provide more examples or to explain anything here that is unclear (since some of it isn't immediately obvious if you haven't looked at the sources). As well, some of these edits were made repeatedly; I've mostly provided only one instance. Esoglou's reliance on agenda-based sources and promoting them over neutral scholarly ones almost goes without saying, and he also has a problem with plagiarism (which may extend beyond this topic area, I haven't looked at his other edits), which he has outright declared isn't a reason to revert his edits.

I warned the user yesterday that this had gone on for far too long and that with the next disruptive edit he made, I would report him to ANI. (I had previously warned him in March. What can I say, I'm nice.) He then restored his statement about homosexuality posing a "widespread threat to life and health." The user is clearly not interested in following policy where to do so conflicts with his desire to push his personal agenda, and a topic ban to end this disruption is long overdue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Just seeking some clarification after reading the diffs, is his comment about "widespread threat to life and health" his own addition or is he quoting a Catholic text?--v/r - TP 22:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

See my comment to TenOfAllTrades below. My version of the text was intended to show what the church's position was without stating in Misplaced Pages's voice that these claims about homosexuality were factually true. Esoglou's edit deliberately sought to say that the church's claims were true. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahh okay, I understand now.--v/r - TP 00:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's sourced to "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986, point 9, para. 2".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The paragraph is online, and it states: "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

While this might be a legitimate reference, the understanding of homosexuality has evolved, yes, even at the Vatican, in the 27 years since this letter was issued. In 1986, there was a high rate of AIDS in some American cities which received an enormous amount of media coverage. I imagine that is part of the subtext behind "threaten the lives" comment.

If I was working on this article, I'd ask for a more recent reference (say, from 2000-2013) and also insist that this comment reflects an official position of the Vatican, not that it is a unambiguous fact and is true. That's just basic referencing knowledge which should be obvious to anyone who's edited for more than a few months. Liz 23:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm getting stuck with the first diffs, there. It doesn't appear, on its face, that it is Esoglou saying that homosexuality poses "widespread threat to life and health", but rather reporting that that is the position – however bigoted, wrongheaded, and offensive – of the Roman Catholic church on the matter. Given that the article is Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, it is not immediately obvious that we shouldn't summarize or report on the church's statements and opinions on this topic—as long as we are careful to ensure they are properly representative (per WP:WEIGHT, etc.) and as long as we are careful not to endorse those views in Misplaced Pages's voice. (Far from making the Catholic church "look good", adding in this type of material ought to be embarrassing.) I'm not saying that a topic ban is or is not warranted, but I'm a bit concerned that the commentary offered here is not well supported by the diffs provided.

Looking at the most recent thread on Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Alleged campaigning against decriminalization, it appears that Esoglou is engaged in a fairly calm, reasonable discussion about a point of contention. Esoglou offered a frank and apparently sincere apology regarding an error he made, and the discussion resulted in a reasonable compromise edit satisfactory to all parties, including Roscelese, which seemed to best reflect the sources at hand.

Honestly, quickly glancing at the article's talk page, it's a bit difficult to untangle who is (most) worthy of trouting. In bickering between Roscelese, Esoglou, and Contaldo80 last week at Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#"Inhuman", the question about whether or not the Holy See described gay sex as "inhuman" got bumped over to RSN: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holy See document. It appears that the only two independent editors to comment on the issue came down more on the side of Esoglou's interpretation of the sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to your first point, you will note in the edits in question that I specifically addressed this concern: to convey the church position without promoting factual inaccuracies, I wrote "what the church claims are risks" and "may supposedly constitute a widespread threat." Esoglou removed this text. There is no way to read this as just conveying the church position. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I am looking at the first three diffs that you presented above: . In all three cases, it is quite clear that the claims about homosexuality are attributed to the church, and are not in Misplaced Pages's voice. In every case, the sentence at issue opens with "The Catholic Church has said that...". Are you saying that Esoglou's edits aren't a factual representation of what the Catholic church has said?

It's neither necessary nor productive to insert multiple hedging statements inside every sentence where we talk about religious beliefs or dogma. In our article on Jesus, we write "Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return." We don't say – and we don't need to say – "Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by a purported Holy Spirit, born of a woman who claimed to be a virgin, performed acts that Christians claim were miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion, rose from a poorly-documented death, and ascended into a supposed heaven..."

Above, Liz raises a much more pertinent point, in that the material cited is some decades old, and may not reflect current Roman Catholic beliefs. As such, it may be worthwhile to review the content in that light, and consider whether Misplaced Pages should address it in the context of historical or current Catholic doctrine—particularly given that it is prominently placed in the lede of the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that there is a difference between non-falsifiable religious beliefs and demonstrably false scientific claims that happen to be located in a religious article, but this is not really the venue for that discussion and I won't waste your time or my own with breaking that down. The statements about the "harm" of homosexuality aren't the only false claims that Esoglou has inserted, and I've also documented a selection of instances of original research and frivolous tagging intended to make the articles conform to his own personal beliefs rather than to reliable sources. If it were only the first three diffs, I would not have brought the issue to ANI. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I will be extremely honest and frank here by saying that both Roscelese and Esoglou are intractable POV-pushers bent on shaping articles to their world view. The only way the integrity of Misplaced Pages is maintained is by both of them canceling each other out. Therefore I will only support a topic-ban for Esoglou if one is also enacted for Roscelese as well. AN/I is a poor venue to bring this kind of content dispute, it is more of an attempt to summon a lynch-mob to remove your competition from the article so that you can steamroll it. If Roscelese truly seeks relief then she will take the time and file a WP:RFCU which would be the best venue for discipline. Elizium23 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternately, if you have any evidence of my inserting insulting factual inaccuracy, deliberately misrepresenting sources, engaging in original research, or wasting everyone's time with frivolous tags, you could start a thread to present those diffs, as I have done. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have evidence of your consistently condescending attitude which always hovers at the twilight edge of WP:CIVIL, and there is clear evidence of your tendency to edit-war in the last two years' worth of block log, which Esoglou does not have. He is admittedly disingenuous and hard to reason with at times, but I personally feel that his abortion topic-ban was an unfortunate casualty as a result of his indelicacy around such a contentious topic which has had its share of trips to WP:ARBCOM. Esoglou should be commended and awarded a Purple Heart for his ability and willingness to step into contentious topics such as homosexuality and defend the alternative viewpoint, which is one that is vanishingly rare around these parts, and probably always has been. Misplaced Pages needs both of you, but there are more of you than there are of him and me, which is what concerns me the most with these frequent trips to WP:ANI and other drama-venues in search of a lynch mob. Elizium23 (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious, and I'm simultaneously too lazy to look at your contribs for this, so I'll ask you for testimony on this. What dispute resolution venues did you attempt before coming here? You've mentioned two warnings to his user talk page. Apparently this article went to WP:RSN previously, which clearly wasn't too satisfying for you. Did you try WP:DRN? Did you try WP:RFC? WikiProject talk pages? Anything else which would befit a content dispute before zooming straight into ANI looking for a drama fest? Elizium23 (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

RSN is not a venue for user behavior. (Nor is DR or RFC.) As should be obvious, when consensus at RSN disagreed with me, I went with consensus rather than continuing to try to undermine the sources. If the community here thinks ANI isn't the right venue, I'd be happy to try RFC/U instead. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand Roscelese's objection to my changing Contaldo's "The Catholic Church also sets out a number of minor arguments against homosexuality ... is detrimental to health" to something closer to what is in the source (here) and finally to a quotation of the exact words used in the source (here). Nor do I understand her objection to this well-sourced edit, which replaced her POV text that presented the Holy See as "claiming" that a proposed resolution would lead to "discrimination against heterosexuals" (in reality against states that upheld the view that marriage by definition is between a woman and a man) and that the Holy See's representative "compared homosexuality to pedophilia and incest" (it took a consultation at RSN to get her to accept that this last phrase was POV). Nor could I understand fully her objection to my changing from her deprecated expression "he points out" because, as is her custom, instead of removing whatever part of my edit she found objectionable, she immediately reverted the whole of it, including other material that is undoubtedly well sourced. I do not understand her objection above to my saying that a journalist's attribution to a document of the Holy See of an expression not in fact found in the document should be reported as the journalist's account, not as plain fact, a question that I also brought to RSN, where agreement has been expressed with my view. Nor do I understand why she sees as mere original research an edit that attributed to its author the idea (which Roscelese insists should be presented as plain fact) that the word παῖς "almost always had a sexual connotation", an idea contradicted by the account given by all dictionaries of ancient Greek, including the one that Roscelese allowed to stay in the article, but only in a footnote. Nor do I understand why she called frivolous my request for a citation in support of the idea that historically the word ἀρσενοκοίτης was not used to refer to homosexuality: this too had to be brought to RSN, where there was consensus that the source that Roscelese claimed as the basis for this statement did not in fact support it. With regard to her habitual use of "frivolous" as a pretext for not responding to such requests, I must add that, a few hours before she brought her complaint against me here, I sincerely thanked her for implicitly admitting, by actually attending to the matter I raised, that "frivolous" was not a fair description of one such request. However, she attended to it only after another editor had intervened in support of my questioning of her text.

It is not worth while raising here questions about Roscelese's own edits, such as her removal of a surely relevant statement by the Holy See's New York representative that: "The Holy See continues to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons should be avoided and urges States to do away with criminal penalties against them", followed immediately by her insertion of the claim that "The church hierarchy campaigns against the decriminalization of homosexuality", her presentation of the Holy See's representative in Geneva in 2011 as "opposing efforts at the 16th session of the UN Human Rights Council to work towards ending violence and criminal sanction based on sexual orientation", when in fact he did not oppose adoption of the draft resolution and, even if he did, this was scarcely an NPOV way of presenting such opposition, and her insistence that, although the Irish bishops clearly wrote that, if the definition of "marriage" were changed in a certain way, they "could not" carry out certain functions, they really stated in that document, according to Roscelese, that they "would not" carry them out - until yet another consultation at RSN settled that. To her credit I must say that, after I challenged her interpretation of a Reuters account of hostile comments on Italian media concerning a statement by the Holy See's New York representative, she did not insist when presented with the full text of what the representative said.

I recognize that Roscelese is annoyed at my poor attempts to ensure balance in Misplaced Pages articles. Even if I sometimes wonder if her declared sexual preference may underlie her annoyance, I in no way question her good faith in describing me as incompetent, unable to read or write English, and so on. Instead of annoying me, these descriptions now amuse me, although I suppose I reacted differently before I got used to them. I have suggested to another editor who was annoyed by the epithets she threw at him that he should take the same attitude, but this he found too difficult. As I confessed to him, too often I fail to hide my amusement. It is hard to hide it in cases like this. Esoglou (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll let this comment, particularly the beginning of the last paragraph, speak for itself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if I sometimes wonder if her declared sexual preference may underlie her annoyance That is totally out of line, Esoglou. Just unacceptable. Liz 19:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Roscelese and I very rarely agree on content, but the comments made about her personal life and preferences is completely over the line and unacceptable. GregJackP Boomer! 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to Liz and GregJackP and to anybody else offended, for saying that this is an idea that sometimes comes to my mind but that I cast aside, believing instead that Roscelese is acting in good faith. Roscelese herself has not objected to my mentioning my rejection of this idea, perhaps because she explicitly says that I do not act in good faith but am out to advance an agenda. Not even here have I said that her personal beliefs are what inspires her editing. Esoglou (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended is very different from I'm sorry I said something offensive. It's the same as the difference between I'm sorry I did wrong, and I'm sorry I got caught. There's no excuse – none – to pull another editor's sexual orientation (openly declared or not) into a content dispute. If this were really an idea that crossed your mind and then was immediately discarded, there would be no reason at all to mention it.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, as purely on the merits of the diffs presented here I felt that Roscelese was reading too much into your edits. Now, however, you have clearly crossed into personalizing the dispute. Drawing attention to the other party's sexual orientation as if it were in any way relevant to this discussion strongly suggests that you aren't capable of approaching LGBT-related topics calmly and neutrally, and indicates that a topic ban may be warranted after all. Frankly, Roscelese didn't do a very persuasive job of selling the topic ban; you damned yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it is shameful to be "queer", the term Roscelese herself uses? There is nothing shameful about one's sexual orientation No more than about one's religious beliefs. I think you should apologize to Roscelese for thus insulting her. Unlike you, she doesn't think it offensive to describe herself in that way, and I presume you don't think she is saying something offensive when she refers to my religious beliefs. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

....just...gobsmacked. Support topic ban, support block for trolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Support topic ban and block per TenOfAllTrades. Esoglou, it isn't about me being offended, it is about inappropriate comments as TOAT explained above. GregJackP Boomer! 23:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Well then, if the community judges that Wikipedians should be banned for admitting they had wondered whether an editor's edits on the topic of red hair were influenced by the fact of having red hair, I presume that, along with banning me for admitting such a thought but at the same time declaring my belief that the editor's edits were nonetheless honest and good-faith, it will also ban Roscelese for actually declaring that my religious beliefs are the reason for my edits. Is that the community's judgement? Esoglou (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand what the issue is. The comment on Roscelese's sexual preferences being a basis for her edit's are not acceptable under any conditions. Period. I do not doubt that I would disagree with her on the content, there is not much that we have agreed on. If she has made comments about your religious beliefs it is also inappropriate, and I would not hesitate to tell her that. The issue I saw is that you were confronted by it and either don't hear it or don't understand. I haven't seen the same response from her. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 11:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You misread. What I said was that Roscelese's sexual preferences were not a basis for her edits, in spite of my sometimes wondering whether it was so. Roscelese on the contrary has accused me of editing on the basis of my religious beliefs. Esoglou (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're only digging yourself in. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've gone over this thread two or three times now, and, honestly, I see no clear and obvious reason for a proposed ban. On that basis, I would have to say that I cannot support one, and that, honestly, without such evidence being presented, there would be and is little reason for any additional commentary from Roscelese or others. If you have good, solid evidence to support the call for a ban, please present it. Otherwise, if it is not presented, I think the thread should probably be closed. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify whether you mean that you would like more diffs or explanation of the existing diffs (as I said, this is merely a selection, and sometimes the fact that Esoglou is eg. outright fabricating things isn't obvious if you haven't read the sources), or that you disagree that this behavior is disruptive? In your opinion, would an RFC/U be a better format? (Not that ANI is an improper venue for topic ban proposals, see elsewhere on the page, but RFC/U better lends itself to explanations of why edits are bad, perhaps.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As a new editor on this article ~ and as someone who isn't a Roman Catholic or a homosexual ~ who is concerned about non-neutral editors pushing their own agendas, my impression so far is that it is actually Roscelese rather than Esoglou who is pushing a personal political agenda in the article. I am familiar with Esoglou on the Catholic Church and some other church-related articles. I actually consider him to be particularly fastidious, sometimes even to a fault, when it comes to articles using and reflecting reliable sources. I have not so far noticed any evidence of him pushing a personal agenda on the Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article. The same, however, cannot be said for Roscelese who has repeatedly edited the article in ways which distort the facts by making universal generalisations based on particular examples. I have at least twice asked that Roscelene stop editing the article in this way. Afterwriting (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As another editor on this article I have to say that I share Roscelese's concerns. I think it's very important for the article to set out the position of the Roman Catholic Church on various aspects relating to the issue of homosexuality (but also including dissent and the real world impact from that position). Where Esoglou does this then his contributions are very welcome. The problem I have, however, is that he does not want to seem to summarise anything in the article. If he thinks a point is not propely balanced he simply responds by removing the whole section and replaces it with a chunk of text taken from some Vatican document of the other - thinking that only the Church's own words carry any weight. But this makes the article awkward to read. In truth these document are often long-winded and deliberately obtuse. The most salient points will easily be missed by all but the most patient and determined reader. There's also a bit of 'sleight of hand' in them in the sense that they seem to say one thing on the surface, but the intention can be actually quite different. I'd like to see the aricle be a bit more straight-talking and less "tricksy", and I'm not sure Esoglou can do that. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is it the community's opinion that RFC/U would be a better venue for this than AN/I? I would be able to explain Esoglou's insertion of original research and factual inaccuracy in a little clearer detail by referencing the sources which don't contain the claims he inserted. Obviously his attributing my disagreement with him to my sexual orientation would also come up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck vs. diacritics

In octu oculi canvassed the Serbian WikiProject so I noticed this. I'm not sure if they should be sanctioned for that, but anway. The more egregious piece of flamebaiting is Fyunck(click)'s edits to random articles about Serbia referring to Ana Ivanović just to remove the diacritic from the surname: at "Grobari" last night and at "Serbian culture" two weeks ago. I've brought up the latter recently at WT:UE#diacritics flamefest, and there's a bit more detailed description of the general problem there, including a link to two extended discussions.

IMO Fyunck's behavior is now well beyond the normal content disputes - they seem to have been on what appears to be a crusade against even the most trivial of the diacritics. This has been going on for over a year now - I think I first noticed this at Talk:Saša Hiršzon in February 2012, but it could be earlier.

We've all seen it escalate in two other cases of the anti-diacritics clique - User:LittleBenW and User:Kauffner. Harping and harping on the same point until they hit a wall.

This pattern of editing Misplaced Pages just to prove a point needs to stop. --Joy (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd support an indefinite TBAN on diacritics for Fyunck, similar to the one on his friend LBW. Continuing to fan these flames after what has already happened (including to LBW) is just plain suicidal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• How many different RFCs and other discussions have there been over the last couple of years? How many more will it take before Fyunck(click) gives up their crusade and recognises the consensus? Edits like this and this change spelling "per wiki consensus and wiki tennis project"; surely Fyunck(click) is the only editor who interprets the result of this RfC and this one as anything other than "stop removing diacritics". bobrayner (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually didn't know until just now that one of the ringleaders of the clique was also community-banned recently. Does Fyunck still not see where this is going? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually wouldn't go so far to say that we have complete consensus on the matter of diacritics. For example, Herostratus' comments in the Fontang RFC have some decent counter points to what is the organic consensus. At a minimum, it is a worthwhile discussion to have. I do however think that we have a consensus that this kind of behavior is grounds for an indefinite topic ban. IOW Fyunck(click)'s disruptive behavior is not doing anything to aid this discussion. Heck, it may be argued that it should stop because it will prejudice people against any argument that he supports! --Joy (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with that; good points. bobrayner (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree too. But I should point out that Joy's op left out arguably the single worst case (see here and here), although it centered around macrons in romanized Japanese rather than diacritics in general. Just aside that if you're gonna include Kauffner you should probably include JS as well. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute. It's not like I'm doing this to all kinds of articles... I'm putting in direct links to Ana Ivanovic, an article that by consensus is sitting at Ana Ivanovic. And why? It was brought to my attention that editor Colonies Chris was direct linking "thousands" of articles. Every time I turned around another one popped up on my watch list. Did Joy or In ictu oculi complain about all those direct links? They knew of them since I kept pointing them out. But no, so I direct link "only" the Ana Ivanovic articles and an ani is called for? Wow. We even had this the last time IIO complained where others chimed in with "We should list it here the way we have it in our article" and "you know very well that this question has been bandied about on Talk:Ana Ivanovic and the current consensus is not to use the accent." Why am I being singled out by User:Joy? You'll note I'm not reverting diacritic articles left and right, you can check the stream of complaints to administrators I have had to make against IIO, so his stuff is meaningless to me. Joy on the other hand should know better and should bring up something recent other than "consensus established" Ana Ivanovic. My behavior is not disruptive, I am simply doing what others are doing but in this case it seems to be against what Joy likes, and because he's an administrator his bias on the situation is showing it's colors. That's really unfair. I have no problem talking about this situation but it would sure be nice to see some different folks, away from the fray, willing to discuss it here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're talking about with Colonies Chris. I reverted your edit to Serbian culture pointing you to WP:NOTBROKEN two weeks ago. Nevertheless, you proceeded to make these kinds of glaringly contentious and pointless edits, despite the year and a half of history of disagreement in the exact same topic area. Did you seriously expect someone to more explicitly notify you of how this is wrong? Or were you just doing drive-by edits with no regard to what happens next? --Joy (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually you are referring to a post made by an editor who happened to find an edit I made, reverted it and I reverted it back. Then he posted this exchange where you saw it. If you have no idea about Colonies Chris (CC) then you aren't reading all the back and forth and problems I'm having with IIO and his disruptions, and you are being biased against me because it's something you don't like. Otherwise you wouldn't be bringing items up from years ago. Did you or will you issue warnings to all others who do thousands of direct links on a regular basis or is this because it was brought to your attention by an editor with a huge history against me? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

One other thing of note. Administrator User:Joy states that I have "been on what appears to be a crusade against even the most trivial of the diacritics." I don't know what he means about that. If he means I !vote a particular way when I see a rm or rfc, then I see nothing wrong with that at wikipedia. If he means I now revert any and every diacritic I see, then he would be lying. If he means that when rm's conclude with an article name change, that I revert that article name, that would also now be a fabrication. But as an administrator, if he's going to pick on direct linking, just because he doesn't like it, and do nothing about direct linking by other editors because he does like it, then that is biased and unfair to me, and unbecoming his administrative badge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

JFTR I don't "dislike direct linking", doing such a thing is simply a violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. Doing it en masse is suspect of WP:NOTHERE, doing it en masse in a topic area where you know that it is likely to annoy people is WP:POINT. Even if we all somehow disregard all history, and take your being oblivious to these issues now at face value, it's still a disruptive act that one should apologize for, but instead you resort to trying to throw mud at others (straw man, ad hominem). I think you've merely proven my point that there's no apparent benefit in the community continuing to tolerate you in this matter. --Joy (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am really not liking the tone you are setting in this conversation. I'm "throwing mud" at others because I see an extreme bias of you to this situation. You seem to be willing to apply rules but only if it fits your liking. At least as far as Ana Ivanovic is concerned. Did you read those other posts agreeing with me that they should be directly linked. Did you check to make sure how many were created since Ana was moved to her present location and that needed to be corrected for a long time now that I finally got around to fixing? Certainly I can apologize and certainly I can say I won't change any more en masse to their direct links. But on the obverse if I see even one person change multiple instances of direct links in the future I would expect that if I reported it to you that you would come down with the same thunder and lightning that you are doing to me now. I would expect you to be even-handed. I would expect the same warnings on their talk pages regardless of which direction the diacritics took. I would expect up to date diffs. That would show me good and fair intentions instead of one-sidedness. Go ahead and ask me all my views on diacritics and see just how much of a "crusade" I'm on to verify that ridiculous statement. I'm an open book for queries from all, except one or two editors who I have been told to stay away from. It's not like I have something to hide or that I act hypocritically from one situation to the next. I try to be fair in accessing things and I try do do what many others do on a regular basis with no repercussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

An article can be moved from one title to another, but that never means that all references to the old title should be replaced with the new one. I don't know who you discussed this with, but it wasn't anyone with an actual knowledge of WP:R. That you would endeavour on such a replacement, without reading the generic rules, and regardless of the specific circumstances (contentious topic area), because some undetermined people told you so or because some other undetermined people are doing something else "with no repercussions", is proof enough that you lack the judgement to be editing in a contentious topic area. --Joy (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I never said I was perfect. But your statement can work both ways. A particular editor has been told over and over that he is failing to apply the same standards to all articles and that he is singling me out for his complaints (we are talking 1000's of making sure links are direct vs my 100s), and that same editor comes running to you or to places you frequent to complain (and make no mistake, that is why you are here). We have other editors agreeing that my direct links are how it should be (and i gave you that diff).

— Fyunck(click) — continues after insertion below

I found no diffs in what you wrote earlier, but I did find a piped link to Talk:Serbia at the 2012 Summer Olympics where I found no agreement that would give you carte blanche to go about your disruptive stripping of diacritics. Exactly one person's opinion there, GRuban's, was strictly in agreement with this approach, and a few more could be interpreted like that, but on the whole it's moot at best because several opinions there are predicated on matters of consistency - and Ana Ivanovic is indeed currently inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia! Heck, the mere fact that it's the middle of the summer in the northern hemisphere, and that number of respondents there was smaller than the number of respondents to other RfCs, should have given you at least a trivial bit of pause. --Joy (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet, I probably shouldn't expect much attention to the spirit of quorum given Talk:Ana_Ivanovic/Archive_6#Requested_move_2012_.231... --Joy (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't take all that into consideration before bringing this to an/i, then perhaps you lack the judgement to be administrating this. Because I'm being judged on an unlevel playing field. I don't know where this tone of contempt is coming from, rather than trying to understand what this particular situation is, but it is unfair. You come up with wording like "his friend LBW"... he's not my friend...and why would you bring that up? Do you have disdain of anyone who disagrees with you? I notice you go right to asking for a ban, you don't come to my talk page and ask the reasons why something is being done. I disagree with you on !votes so I must be banned. I do what some others are doing with impunity and I must be banned. Seemingly most unfair. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're ranting at the wrong person here. Please read more carefully who wrote those comments. (If I was cynical, I'd ask you whether you are trying to reinforce the impression of yourself as careless...) --Joy (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You know it's really easy to get into a judgement "tit for tat" thing. I can honestly say I don't like doing this as it makes me uneasy accusing fellow editors. There are many many wiki guidelines that are ignored every day. Some are contested and some are not. We all know this to be true. What is policy one day changes the next. I truly believe that if an article changes to its diacritic form, and editors start changing all the direct links to conform to that, that no one would care; that that editor would never see the inkling of an an/i. Why, because I have seen it and it's what made me figure, to be fair it should work both ways. I didn't do direct linking until I started seeing all the changes to other articles. If things are done fairly and openly I tend to abide by results. I'm not quite sure what's happening here with this whirlpool. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I fundamentally disagree with your notion of tit for tat - we shouldn't support the idea that things change arbitrarily at a whim of any partial choice. We shouldn't have groups of tag teams at each others' throats all over the place. That's the definition of disruptive behavior. --Joy (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Groups of tag-teams? I'm not sure what this means? Both sides of the issue have a few editors that get involved more than others to be sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Folks, Fyunck actually has a "full house"; WP:OWN, WP:POINTY, WP:IDHT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, on his hand, ultimately adding up to WP:GAMING. He has been at odds with the greater community of editors for a long time now, and has only been saved from lengthier blocks or bans by being smarter (more soft-spoken and sophisticated) than for instance currently banned/blocked editors GoodDay and LittleBenW. Overall, though, his behaviour is a nuisance to the project. He has been waging a retreating (edit) war to the brink of being blocked for edit-warring over individual articles, but stopped just short of it, for instance on:

• Facundo Argüello (tennis),
  • diffs: , , ,
• Jörgen Windahl,
  • diffs: , , ,
• Jelena Janković,
  • diffs: , , , .

Dozens of editors have reverted Fyunck over time, dismissing the additions as trivialities and insults to readers, but he keeps re-adding it. Fyunck has, possibly worried about being blocked for edit-warring, given up the above articles, and is now – as far as I know – only "protecting" the article on Ana Ivanovic (history) from diacritics; the latest altercation there was with Mareklug on 28 July 2013. (This is the one article that In ictu oculi has referred to several times in this context.)

I think it's time to seriously discuss whether a topic ban on diacritics would be appropriate.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This edit and edit summary on Gérard Solvès is rather telling: no reason for changing name throughout.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note, this is one of two editors (mentioned above) who has been blocked for edit warring on the same issue (both long ago). He has been talked to by multiple administrators for harassing me. And these diffs for a year, year and a half ago are ridiculous. You'll note many had nothing to do with diacritics but whether censorship could take place on wikipedia when items are heavily sourced. A recent rfc decided we could censor here so there's not much to say on that anymore other than items that go against tennis project consensus and additions that the project feels is important to add. I'm not at all surprised to see him post here. In fact I would have been shocked if he didn't. As far as being a nuisance to the Tennis Project I guess you'd have to ask there among my peers... I can't speak for them. I simply try to do my best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh, you conveniently forgot to mention that the other one was you. I have not been "talked to" by multiple administrators. I was asked – once – by an administrator, and I responded that I had mislabeled my report on you as 3rr instead of edit-warring. It did indeed have everything to do with diacritics, only you tried to disguise it as – don't laugh now, folks – "censorship". You know, it's strange that so many editors have "a huge history" with you. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The statement "it's strange that so many editors have "a huge history" with you" is untrue. I only claim to have a history on this with two people...and you are numero uno. I talk to anyone and everyone on my talkpage to come to compromises or change my mind. It happens a lot. But two of you have lost that right because of harassment and lies. Only two I can think of. One of which is extremely vocal and I know influences a lot of editors. There's nothing I can do about that except plod on doing whatever I can and trying to ignore attacks and such. There are plenty of editors I don't agree with 100% of the time but we almost always work through our differences with compromise and an agenda of improving tennis and other articles. Sadly, with two of you that won't work anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed. Editors coming to your talkpage and asking you why you're carrying out changes against consensus is not harassment, it's how we communicate, although you obviously dont want to listen. It may ultimately lead to warnings to report you – although you label that as "intimidation" and "threats". Comply with consensus, and you'll have no such "trouble". Also, it's not the first time you are accusing others of lying. Can you provide diffs? HandsomeFella (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck, there is a veritable United Nations Security Council-worth of editors who have found your crusade against diacriticals both wearisome and destructive of the project. Tennis players cannot become a walled garden of articles where the sanctity of the diacritical-free Modern English version of the Roman alphabet is preserved against "foreign" influences. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Orangemike. Seriously, you use this term crusade and I'm wondering if in the last 6 months you're basing this crusade on fact or heresy heresay. Please ask me what my stances are and what I intend to do about them and I think you'll better understand me. I don't recall interacting with you before so I'll take you as fair and balanced in your assessment. You can ask on my talk page to save room here if you like and I'll try to be clear in my answers. You also have to remember that things weren't so clear 18 months ago so my actions on what I do on wikipedia may have changed substantially. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean "hearsay", not "heresy". HandsomeFella (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

oops, yes, thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

New spelling is also wrong. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I notice Fyunck's userpage flaunts a quotation from WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". I wonder, therefore, if he has consistently followed usage in English-language reliable sources, regardless of which way it goes? Has he ever supported an RM toward a diacriticized spelling because that is how all the English reliable sources spell it? I'll admit I generally prefer diacritics to none, but I have a consistent, systematic philosophy on this matter: for living people, spell their names the way they spell their own names; for dead people, spell their names according to reliable sources (read: university presses first, personal blogs last, and everything in between defined in order). I'd challenge Fyunck to show up at Talk:Empress Jingu where I recently opened an RM, and where almost all the RSs favour the diacritic spelling, and !vote in favour of the move. Or don't: I'd be happy with evidence that Fyunck has ever supported a single RM in favour of using diacritics. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In answer to that... I can only say, I don't know. I usually stay in tennis/sports discussions so I can't be sure. I can say that in prior discussions that I have said, even if in English sources it showed only 40% diacritic usage then the article should probably be at the diacritic spelling. One instance is recently I noticed that Bjorn Borg has quite a few English sources spelling it Björn Borg. I would not !vote for moving that page. Would I !vote for keeping it as is? I'd like to think I would. It's why I was against using only the governing bodies of tennis' official name spellings. We had an editor that wanted to base spelling only on that. It didn't seem appropriate to do that at wikipedia, that we use all sources, and I told him thusly. But I don't think that has anything to do with what we are talking about here though. We are talking about an article that has consensus at the English alphabetic spelling where I directly linked those spellings. Editors try to change those links all the time and get reverted, and not just by me. Yeah I get flak for it, but I usually just plod onward to do other things. And it's not like I'm hiding it as I even talk on my user page about it and the fact it seems to be the norm. Except since my direct links seem to go to an article title some don't like, I get picked on more as I scratch my head at the hypocrisy. I pretty much assume now that getting more flak is the norm... but An/i's are a different level of that. I'd go to Talk:Empress Jingu and take a look but at this stage wouldn't everyone just think it's disingenuous? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think this approach makes any sense, it can be argued that you're just taunting him now. I never intended for this discussion to spawn any new tendentious or disruptive behavior, it was supposed to put an end to one particular set of it. --Joy (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Close thread and fix source of problem - although this is long-running, this is a content dispute fixed on one article per Talk:Ana_Ivanovic/Archive_6. The reason I notified WikiProject Serbia is that this affects Serbia articles, but the solution I have proposed at WikiProject Serbia is upgrading the Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia MOS, not running to ANI. As far as the ground zero article goes, you, Joy, expressed the problem here:

I see the WP:TENNISNAMES clique managed to push their agenda through here as "consensus" with barely anyone else noticing it in time to object. I'm requesting we revert this bad move because it's got nothing to do with WP:CONSENSUS. --Joy (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

However irritating it may be to have this variant surface after 2 WP:SNOW RfCs WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:TENNISNAMES2 Fyunck(click) believes he is within his rights to go round 150 articles deleting the ć from just one Serbian name. Then there's two solutions, either WP:TENNISNAMES3 to cover the new variant, or a simpler solution: Joy, Bob, Mike, Hijiri 88, someone, do as Fyunck himself has suggested and if we think singling out one Serbian for removal of ć from 150 articles is not consistent, then put in a RM for the ground zero article. I realize that you didn't have time to comment on the last RM before a non-admin made a quick close (following Fyunck's request for a quick close) last time, but this would take the problem off ANI's plate and Fyunck has already said he will follow article title if title is ć. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, no, this is really just a slippery slope to a tag team attitude. Cf. WP:TAGTEAM. Besides, we have absolutely no reason to believe that resolving one particular content dispute one particular time will end this whole madness. The pattern of behavior where one doesn't have it their way and then they keep incessantly finding ways to get around that - is a sign of battleground mentality that is fundamentally incompatible with the process of making an encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Joy, well we'll have to agree to disagree, going by either RM or RfC process WP:TENNISNAMES3 or fix MOS:SERBIAN is actually a way of avoiding WP:TAGTEAM behaviour - rather than waving the topic ban stick at ANI. And process isn't Tagteam, unless we count the WP:SNOW in WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:TENNISNAMES2 as one giant tag team - which it wasn't; large number of new faces.

What I would like to see from Fyunck would be not a change on his belief in "ATP names" (he's entitled to his opinion) but that WP:BRD applies to him too. If Fyunck was willing to accept that his edits were subject to WP:BRD we wouldn't have needed WP:TENNISNAMES2, since it was the understanding WP:BRD if reverted, put it straight back in with an edit summary complaining about censorship that made WP:TENNISNAMES2 necessary, all for one editor. If Fyunck accepted that WP:BRD applies to him too we wouldn't be here, now.

This can be solved off-ANI by either (a) RM, (b) RfC (c) MOS tighten. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Close situation can be solved away from ANI. At this moment in time I would think that a topic ban for Fyunck(click) would serve counterproductivly. It is true that a number of people have been banned due to their activity in this issue, but that was due to their unreasonable behavior (eg socking). Agathoclea (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  Battleground mentality is an issue of course, but let us see if it continues after this particular issue is solved. At this moment in time I am actually quite hopeful. Looking at the current infobox mess this seems quite harmless. Agathoclea (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If so, what do you think we should do about those references to Ivanovic's article? Do ignore them, roll back those edits, do we expect Fyunck to undo it, something else? What happens the next time he decides to change 100+ articles, who cleans that up? --Joy (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeking topic ban for Hgrosser

I am seeking a topic ban for Hgrosser (talk · contribs) from further edits related to the non-notable individual Nicole Hamilton, author of Hamilton C shell, also mentioned in C shell#Influence. His sole objective appears confined to calling unnecessary attention to Ms. Hamilton's private life and to her gender transition, contrary to our guidelines.

Edit history:

C shell: 10 edits, beginning 6 March 2013 with this result, and 4 edits beginning 26 August 2013

Hamilton C shell: 2 edits, beginning 25 August 2013

User talk:Hgrosser: Warnings 9 March 2013 and 25 August 2013

User talk:Msnicki: Hgrosser's response 26 August 2013

Though Ms. Hamilton's product appears notable based on multiple print sources, no such sources appear to exist to establish notability for Ms. Hamilton. Further, notability is not inherited nor is there evidence Ms. Hamilton might be notable for other reasons as might apply under WP:ANYBIO. Most of the available sources are Usenet posts and online blogs by her and her friends. All are clearly WP:QUESTIONABLE. The only possibly WP:RELIABLE source is an iTunes recording released by Stanford University of a panel discussion held at Stanford in 2007. But all of the content pertaining to Ms. Hamilton is her speaking about her own life in her own words, making it unmistakably WP:PRIMARY. Ms. Hamilton is simply not notable.

Nonetheless, Hgrosser insists on calling attention to the private matter of her gender transition in the late 90s by inserting her former name in unnecessarily prominent ways into these two articles, doubly so when the main subject isn't even her software. This information is irrelevant to any discussion of her software product and the inclusion is unnecessarily intrusive into a non-notable individual's private life, disrespectful and contrary to our guidelines. Further, he's been warned twice.

From Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages rests with the person who adds or restores material."

And from Misplaced Pages:LGBT#Guidelines, "The Misplaced Pages Manual of Style's guidelines on identity indicate to refer to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves. ... In cases where a gender variant person was not notable under their prior name, but has subsequently confirmed a different gender identity, the prior name should be limited to the main article. There is likely no need to bring attention to this by adding to the lede or an infobox. (See Do No Harm.)" In this particular case, there is no main article on Ms. Hamilton and no need whatsoever to call attention.

Our guidelines notwithstanding, I'm aware there is always a tabloid fascination among some with the private lives of others, especially when there's a titillating sexual aspect. Hgrosser is not the first editor to have discovered, by comparing early and current documents describing her C shell, that Ms. Hamilton must have changed her name and gender. He's also not the first to decide this fact needed to be shared with the widest possible audience. To avoid having the information come and go in very likely completely inappropriate ways, which by itself would call unnecessary attention, my solution was a footnote to the author's name in the lede of the Hamilton C shell article, stating that she's discussed her transition at the Stanford panel discussion and giving the iTunes citation. If you really, really think you need to know more, you can go listen to her tell her story in her own words.

Hgrosser was the first to insert her former name into the C shell article as well, where it truly is peripheral and completely inappropriate. This resulted in his first warning. But recognizing that if he had tried to insert it into that article as well, others might try also, I chose the more discreet approach of citing only the footnote contained in the Hamilton C shell article in the C shell article. I believe both articles now contain absolutely all that needs to be said on this private matter of this private individual's private life and probably more.

Hgrosser has been warned twice, the second time that if he did this again, I would take it to WP:ANI. Here we are. After the second warning, he decided my citing only the footnote in the C shell article wasn't good enough, and that the whole thing, including the mention of the old name had to go into the C shell article as well. In his defense, Hgrosser argues that the name change is "confusing" and needs to be clarified. But (a) it obviously wasn't too confusing for too long to Hgrosser and (b) we are often confused by the things other people do in their private lives but that does not entitle us to find the answers on Misplaced Pages.

There is simply no valid encyclopedic purpose to Hgrosser's behavior and it is contrary to our guidelines. The only edits Hgrosser has made to the C shell and to the Hamilton C shell articles have been for the sole purpose calling undue attention to Ms. Hamilton's personal life.

I have no objection to Hgrosser editing either of these articles (or any other) for any other encyclopedic purpose should he ever have one, but I am seeking a topic ban on the subject of the non-notable individual, Nicole Hamilton. Msnicki (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh. The issue is, as Hgrosser describes, that our sources for Hamilton Shell say that it was written by Douglas Hamilton. Our Manual of Style, as expounded ad infinitum above, says we need to say it was written by Nicole Hamilton. There is no way around writing "Nicole Hamilton was, at the time, Douglas Hamilton," and backing this with a reliable reference. We don't have to go into long details about the transition but we absolutely have to write this, otherwise we have an article that says A and a source that says B. And it looks like this is all Hgrosser has done, one sentence, one ref. Far, far less than the wall of text just above. --GRuban (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(EC) While I appreciate this is a very sensitive area, I don't see the need for a topic ban at this time, the number of edits are small and it seems clear Hgrosser is fully willing to discuss it. Problems can and should be resolved via discussion and WP:Dispute resolution (probably WP:BLP/N) with recognition that given the sensitivity and WP:BLP issues involved, consensus should be reached before any changes are made rather than following BRD. While I agree we should not draw unnecessary attention to the subjects personal life, I think Hgrosser has a point that there is merit to mention the name change in one or both articles in some way since the limited notability which results in the subject being mentioned in the articles comes from the shell and as I understand it, she was involved in the shell before the name change and so people may recognise the older name and be confused, in addition to the fact that other documents including ones written by the subject herself may use her older name. I would note both articles currently use sources which are cited under each name, whether or not these sources are useful I have not looked at. And I am not saying we definitely need to mention both names in both article, simply that it seems to be a valid thing to discuss and we should WP:AGF that Hgrosser wants to make the change not to bring undue attention to the subjects personal life but because they feel not mentioning it causes unnecessary confusion. Whether or not it is necessary to mention and how is of course ultimately something that should be resolved via discussion. Personally, I would agree a footnote is probably best although I would note that the footnote which you seem to support where the transition is explicitly mentioned seems more intrusitive than simply mentioning the name change, but that's neither here nor there at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, I just noticed the footnote to a footnote of another article inside the huge wall of text: <ref>]</ref> . Msnicki, you absolutely can not do that. One article can not cite another Misplaced Pages article as a reference. Our articles are not reliable sources - they can change at any moment, they are written by anonymous editors, and it is a non-trivial effort to find who wrote any given line. Since Nicole formerly Douglas Hamilton is neither crucial to C Shell nor, as you write, notable enough for her own article, I'm just going to elide her name from the C Shell article and hopefully reduce the field of conflict by half. --GRuban (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne, it is not really that I "support" the footnote I've written but the edit history of the article that tells me other editors will be satisfied with nothing less. Case in point, why we are here.

GRuban, the reference in one article to a footnote in the other is certainly not being offered as evidence of anything. It's only at best a "see also" on a minor detail that certainly doesn't need to go into C shell#See also. But to the extent it matters, if you click the link, you learn there is an apparently WP:RELIABLE source. If there is a better way of coding that, I am all for it. Hgrosser raises the concern that a cite note might be renumbered; I tried inserting an template:anchor instead but while wikilinking to it will scroll the page, it will not highlight citation. I am happy to promise to monitor the articles and fix the link if it does get broken. Msnicki (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Followup to GRuban: I just saw this edit. This is an excellent choice. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban as unjustified. The rest is a content dispute. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Just as the courts, when someone files a frivolous lawsuit, not only dismiss it, but impose sanctions on the filer (such as making him pay the defendant’s attorney fees), I feel there should be some cost to Msnicki for bringing this frivolous/vindictive case, such as perhaps a 24-hour ban on editing. Hgrosser (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That's not warranted either. Blocks are preventative not punitive. A one-time overreaction is not something that is sufficiently frivolous to result in any sort of concrete sanction; WP:TROUT at best. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleting reliable source of Turkish/Muslim civilians deaths

Please look here ]. The source for the number of Turkish/Muslim civilians deaths in western anatolia during Greek occupation 1919-1921 is being deleted. The deleting users do original research on the talk page ] and claim the death toll exceeds total muslim number. They claim muslim pop was 1.1 mil but they only use a statistic of 1893 for Aydın Vilayet. But the source refers to all areas occupied by Greece. (Aydin Vilayet Hudavendigar Vilayet Biga Vilayet Kocaeli Vilayet parts of Ankara Vilayet. In those areas 3-4 million Muslims were living before Greek occupation.

In Aydın, Muslim population was 1.4 million in 1914 but the deleting users use a census of 1893 which is 20 years earlier! The Ottoman census of 1914 here ]. They add sources which states at least 15.000 Turks were massacred however those sources call this a minimum number and do not exclude at all that the death toll was hıgher. As it is known from many sources Greek troops burned many villages and towns during occupation and muslim death toll was very high.

The source comes from Cambridge University and the author is Dawn Chatty. Still they deleted the source by doing original research, can you please correct this or inform admins? Thanks88.250.208.19 (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Chatty is using McCarty as a source but now they claim McCarty is unreliable because he denies Armeniam genocide. Correction he does not deny massacres or death toll but only questions the terminology of Genocide, still vague criticism towards him by some in that case is unrelated to the present topic of the Greco Turkish war, his books are used by mainstream academics. They also remove J. Rummel because they claim the issue is too comlex to be added in footnotes. The argument makes no sense as all other genocide death tolls are added in footnotes. They could brimg new sources to the casualty list however they chose to delete all sources which the they do not like, to make it clear all sources which mention Turkish/Muslim casualties.

McCarty uses historical sources to calculate the Muslim and Christian population before the war period and after, the result of his extensive shows the dissapearence of nearly 1,2 million Muslims and 0,3 million Greeks. His figure for Greek casualties is close to that of Rummel 0.26 million. However Rummel gives no total number but mentions that at least 15,000 Turks were massacred by Greeks.

Furthermore they claim McCarty uses deaths earlier then the Greco Turkish War 1919-1922, from 1913 till 1922, howevere this is again wp:or, the reason 1913 is chosen is because that was the moment before the wars. The Muslim death toll from 1913 till 1919 was very small im comparison to the Greek occupation when hundreds of villages and dozens of towns were burned down and massacred by Greek troops, this is confirmed by contemporary western sources. Still they claim that 1,2 million is too vague and is not for the Greco Turkish war period, they base this on nothing, as it is clear almost all Muslim deaths ocurred during the Greek occupation.

These are the sources: Notes: According to research by R. J. Rummel, during the war (1919-1922) nearly 264,000 Greeks and at least 15,000 Muslim Turks had died. According to McCarthy's estimates, nearly 1.2 million Muslims in western Anatolia and 313,000 Anatolian Greeks had died in the period ranging from 1913 to 1922.

In short they are searching for excuses to censor the Muslim casualties or minimise them towards a very small number.

Blatant pov pushing and denial of Muslim casualties is the case in this article and has beimg goimg on for a long time. Admins have to look at this case, and stop this behaviour without warnings or sanctions it encourages them to do even more pov pushing, source distortion and original research. This is like denial of the Holocaust, but in this case only because the victims were Turkish Muslims they are allowed to censor it and no admin is interested to stop this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.250.208.19 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an ongoing content dispute, which is in the middle of a recently started discussion at Talk:List of massacres in Turkey (and, I note, the OP has not yet participated in). This going through the normal process for a content dispute, and I am recommending no admin action at this time, and a suggestion that the OP particpate in the talk page discussion). Singularity42 (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

O.K obvious pov pushing, deleting academic sources, doing original research, source distortion, wk:canvass, false accusations against authors/books is allowed when the victims are Turks. It is clear why Turkish topic articles are so shit when retarded anti Turkish nationalists can do whatever they please by encouragement and ignorance from equally retarded admins.

Note: The above unlogged user, is obviously (according to the tone of his language) perma banned in such topics user:DragonTiger23, per wp:ae ]. He insists to restore, in a desperate attempt, his pov versions in the specific articles, but no wonder he received a perma ban due to problematic behavior.Alexikoua (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: The above user is an extremely pov pushing non neutral editor on wikipedia and should be perm blocked a long time ago for his disrupted behaviour in Turkish articles. He is the one who removed the source with his original reseach in the first place, as always, some time later he was supported by his canvassing buddy user:Athenean and later by more. Their goal is giving the fake appearance of a neutral discussion to outsiders. As for user:DragonTiger23, who was blocked by the manipulations of the above and his canvassing buddies, not that DT23 will be the last as these professional swindlers have the desire to block everyone who disagrees with them.

A latest example of his behaviour:

• removing information and sources from an article where Greek troops massacred Turkish villagers by removing a list of burned villages. ]
• adding as a retaliation(?) a massacre of Greeks by Turks. ]

Repeated violations of NFCC

JoBrLa (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added multiple non-free covers to Revised Standard Version, which clearly violate WP:NFCC. Ive warned the user several times about this but the user is ignoring both me and policy. Werieth (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

These covers are fair use. There is no reason to take them down. I'm tired of people taking the articles I have worked so hard to improve and wrecking them. --JoBrLa (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of them may be {{PD-text}}. Maybe get input from Misplaced Pages:Fair_use_review? Some key ideas seem to be images of multiple printings or releases of what looks like the same one topic of the article and/or multiple images of the same item itself. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Its just multiple releases of the same book, which isnt allowed. Werieth (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion, File:Title Page to RSV.jpg is below the threshold of originality. The few lines of text which can't be read might be copyrightable, but as you can't read them, this should be no issue. I also suspect that File:RSV CE large version.jpg is below the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Assuming copyright on the images, I am unsure whether the uses of multiple images meets the criterion set forth by 3a of WP:NFCC. —Dark 21:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• As the case is not crystal clear, the proper venue for controversial images is not edit warring for boldly removing them from the article without discussion nor discussing them at ANI, but taking them to WP:NFCR or WP:FFD. No action needed. Cavarrone 05:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits

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

Evidence: , , , , and . Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David, the son of Yiḥye,  may his name live forever

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need help dealing with SPA

The user Catiiitv (talk · contribs) has been on Misplaced Pages since September 2012. In that time, he/she has created an article about a non-notable band which as been A7ed three times , and then subsequently inserted the name of the band into the Outsider music article. The account has made no other edits except to my talk page yesterday and today. I have twice cleared the Outsider music article of redlinked, non-notable bands, yet this editor continues to sneakily try to reinsert this one band in amongst other edits . I warned them about their seeming attempts to promote this non-notable band and their failure to provide a reliable source establishing that this band is notable. Although they responded on my talk page that they would read the guidelines I provided, they again tried to insert the band into the article amongst other edits . The editor seems unwilling to establish notability first and appears intent that this non-notable band be listed on the Outsider music article. A warning and subsequent attempt to discuss the matter with them has failed, so the next step appears to be a block. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The article was A7ed three times nearly a year ago, and the editor tried to work with you on your talk page. If the article is recreated without meeting policy and those edits continue, a warning is in place but for now, no block as its clearly a new editor you are dealing with WP:BITE. Secret 03:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bite? They're deliberately sneaking the band's name back into the article by hiding it with other noncontroversial edits, and even did so AFTER I told them about what policies they needed to read and AFTER they were "working with me on my talk page". I do not think this is a new editor. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The user The Master (talk · contribs) is also inserting a false red-linked subject into the Outsider music article. He is copy and pasting the article with 'tine-'tine and numerous errors from before he supposedly corrected the article. I believe his judgement is faulty and clouded. I am working on references for Grand Reefer and apologize for the inconvenience. 17:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Catiiitv (talk)

• Tine-tine is gone: The Master reinstated a hidden note, "The persons in this list should have a Misplaced Pages article attached to them. If it redlinks, it will likely be removed.", and should do well to heed their own advice. Grand Reefer likewise will only make the list if there's an article. I don't see any need for administrative action, unless some admin wants to figure out who, in this discussion, should be called "pot" and who "kettle"--a distinction without much difference. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• By the way, it's entirely possible that Grand Reefer will turn blue one day (for longer than a day!), but I doubt that I will live to see that particular day. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I don't normally go to Misplaced Pages for a quick laugh. You must be on your death bed, Drmies.Catiiitv (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I may well be, but I won't be going to Mobile for my last breath. With my luck, there will be a drizzle of rain and all the streets will be flooded. Good luck with the reefer and Roll Tide. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Catiiitv, please do not re-create the article or insert mentions of the band elsewhere. You admitted in your talk page edit of 03:21, September 28, 2012, now deleted, that you are or were a member of that band. (see WP:SPAM, WP:COI) Even if the day somehow comes that the band is unquestionably notable (and I have an opinion of the likelihood of that event), it wouldn't be appropriate for a band member to write the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing some sanity to this thread, Andrew. Sometimes I wonder why I sometimes still care. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Unapproved BOT Activity

See Misplaced Pages:Help_desk#Lists_being_broken_into_individual_articles_for_no_reason The user seems to be set on mass creating pages. While the Solar eclipse pages have since been deleted, a quick look at the user's contribs shows they're still doing the same activity. They claim they're not running a bot, however it seems clear there's no human way possible for the mass creation of pages. In fact right after claiming not running a bot, it shows they ran one to fix the problem that was pointed out with another mass creation. Account was linked to darafshbot which currently shows unapproved and blocked, but is where the templates he's using are being stored. Caffeyw (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Also just for reference Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DarafshBot Caffeyw (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't run bot! i use this template and creat article manually. this is illicited? Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk)‍ 10:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no way to have multiple pages changed/created within the same minute that is humanly possible that I'm aware of. Even if it's not an actual bot and just a tool, there's no way each and every change/creation is being approved by you. This would make whatever tool being used fall under the bot policy. Also mass creations are prohibited under the policy without approval. While I'm assuming good faith on your part the closing reason for denying approval of your darafshbot seems to be coming to mind. WP:COMPETENCE Caffeyw (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I repeat again: "I dont run bot or use tool, i creat this article manually". but if is illicited, i don't creat more pages. Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk)‍ 12:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the edits could have been done manually. But they are so so fast and so regular that they are indistinguishable from a bot (specially 24 August). Consequently, they fall under bot policy even if they are done manually, and they are "illicited" (you mean "illicit"). I would like others to give an opinion:

22 August edits-per-minute
13:29 4
13:28 2
13:27 2
...
...
03:49 3
03:48 6
03:47 4
03:46 4
03:45 8
03:44 4
03:42 3
03:41 9
03:40 2
03:39
03:38
03:37 2
03:36 2
03:35
03:34 4
03:33 3
03:32 3
03:31 1
03:30 8
03:29 1
03:28
03:27
03:26 1
03:25 4
03:24 1
03:23
03:22 3
03:21
03:19 2
03:18 2
03:17 1
03:16 4
03:15 3
03:14 3
03:13 1
03:12
03:11
03:10
03:09 5
03:08 2
03:07 6
03:96 4
03:05 1
03:04 2
03:03 2
03:01 1
24 August edits-per-minute
06:07 1
06:08
06:09
06:10
06:11 1
06:12 1
06:13 1
06:14 1
06:15 1
06:16 1
06:17 1
06:18 1
06:19 1
06:20 1
06:21 1
06:22 1
06:23 1
...
...
07:22 2
07:23 3
07:24 4
07:25 2
...
07:37 1
...
07:45 1
...
07:56 1
07:57 2
07:58 1
27 August edits-per-minute
11:19 1
11:20 
11:21 4
11:22 3
11:23 6
11:24 3
11:25 1
11:26 2
11:27 4
11:28 4
11:29 4
11:30 4
11:31 4
11:32 4
11:33 4
11:34 1
11:35 1
11:36
11:37 2
11:38
11:39
11:40 1
11:41 3
11:42 3
11:43 3
11:44 3
11:45 3
11:46 3
11:47 3
11:48 2
...
...
23:11 2
23:12 5
23:13 2
23:15 2
23:16 3
23:18 1
23:21 3
23:22 4
23:23 2
23:24 5
23:25 4
23:26 2
23:30 1
23:31 4
23:32 3
23:33 6
23:34 2
23:36 4
23:43 5
23:44 5
23:45 5
23:46 6
23:47 1

(The articles on solar eclipses are not here because they were all deleted). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

P.D.: See also what Caffeyw says about reviewing each edit and approval for mass creation. Post in Wikiproject Iran about mass-creating the village articles, they may like the idea or they may tell you not to do it. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Close thread The user has gone through 4 bot requests officially and had 2 approved. If they wanted to run a bot, they know exactly how. Which means, there is no competence issue and WP:AGF says we take the editor's word that he's not lying if we cannot prove he is. As far as the multiple edits in the span of a few minutes, we have no idea if he's got tabs open in his browser. He could have tabs open with the template, copying and pasting the words in the right boxes. Tough to know for sure.--v/r - TP 12:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Look at the section on the jamoats in the HelpDesk conversation. You can see the template he used has numbers in them. When it was pointed out that he reversed the final two fill-ins, (numbers 11 and 12 if I remember) he went revised the template and ran it again. All where reversed not just one or two. (ie Originally the line was reading there where 13 people, in 133 families instead of 133 people in 13 families.) No matter what the BOT policy applies. Caffeyw (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Question: if he's running an approved bot then why is he claiming to not run one at all? MM (Report findings) 15:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• WP:AGF would say that it is a failing of his English, rather than an untruth. His English isn't exactly textbook standard, so it's entirely probable that he mixed up "don't" with "didn't". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• I'm noting his user page has the following "This user runs a bot, DarafshBot. It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually." posted on it. Might not be using it under that username, but it seems it is being used. Caffeyw (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

He was running an unapproved bot. I used the Mediawiki API interface to obtain the exact seconds of each edit.

And in 27 August he said all his edits had been manual...:

• "i dont run my user for automated"
• i just use the template and creat articles, manually. i member of BAG in fa.wiki and know this task that runing bot on my account, need approval."

He even awarded me a good faith barnstar, for believing him.................. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, now he has changed to Misplaced Pages:Page Curation, a manual tool. I hope he doesn't return to using the old tool. As far as I am concerned, this issue is closed for me. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As long as he understands mass creates fall under the BOT policy regardless of if he uses a fully automated or not tool then I think the issue is done with. Caffeyw (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Harassing an administrator?

I noticed something strange. User:99.119.130.219 has been on Misplaced Pages less than a day, yet in his first five hours he reverted administrator User:Arthur Rubin 22 times.

On a totally unrelated note, did you ever notice that sometimes a new set of socks has a distinctive duck-like smell? Weird, huh? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like quacking to me. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for others, although this one seemed to start with reverting my reversions of those socks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not all socks smell bad. Jauersock/_dude. 15:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

He's right you know, they don't smell bad after they've been blocked. heh heh. MM (Report findings) 15:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Many people are under the false impressions that sockpuppets are slimy. Actually, they are dry and leathery to the touch, with a just a faint odor of desperation mixed with bile. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahn Sahng-hong and World Mission Society Church of God

Hi,

I've been tracking two pages in particular the past couple of weeks. The pages are Ahn Sahng-hong and World Mission Society Church of God. Pretty much every day without fail the user Nancyinthehouse or people who appear affiliated with her revert almost any edits made that quote third party sources critical of beliefs involving the World Mission Society Church of God. Even after experienced editors like MarkMiller stepped in tried to make some of the articles more neutral sounding, the edits were eventually reverted. This has been happening since March. If you look at the Talk section of either page what ends up happening is users like Nancyinthehouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Watts9595 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Galemw2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) revert the page to a state that has information either incorrectly cited from sources or cite almost entirely to the World Mission Society Church of God Website. It's really absurd that this is allowed to continue--right now neither page has an objective, third-party view--both are a complete mess. Numerous attempts at discussion are seen in the Talk pages but nothing ever gets settled because these users refer to the cited sources as "lies" and then revert the page.

For example, after Galemw2 was done editing one page: Diff 1 After Watts9595 was done editing the page: Diff 2 After Nancyinthehouse was done editing the page: Diff 3

Here's another diff from the WMSCOG page Diff 4.

If you look further back in the history of the page edits you see that such users have been consistently making massive edits to both pages for the past few months. Please help get this under control, it's just deteriorating the information on Misplaced Pages.

75.72.176.22 (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I add to the above the observations that (a) both Galemw2 and Watts9595 are accounts created within the last 3 days, Galemw2 was created 03:22, 26 August 2013 and Watts9595 was created 17:26, 27 August 2013, that (b) both accounts are single purpose accounts only editing in Ahn Sahng-hong and World Mission Society Church of God, that (c) both accounts made deletions of sourced material from the articles within 8 minutes from account creation, that (d) Galemw2 have made lengthy objections on both talk pages claiming certain sources are unreliable, that (e) both Nancyinthehouse and Watts9595 have supported, that (f) all three accounts seem to imply they speak or understand Korean, the native language of the Church, while (g) Watts9595 repeatedly accuses Superfly94, Peter1007 and I for socking.

• The blind are leading the blind there. That talk page is atrociously unclear. Now, I'm not an authority on people who claim to be Jesus (I knew one of them one time but I'm pretty sure it was the heroin doing the talking), but I smell spam when I see it, even if it's Korean, and removed a "bibliography". Are we dealing with a conflict between adherents of the New Covenant Passover Church of God and the World Mission Society Church of God? Perhaps it could be even juicier if we had apostates from all involved parties in there. Or we could ask Dougweller to dedicate yet more of his life to the project. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Diffs have been supplied, very good. Now please notify the other users as described in the large, bright orange information bar at the top of the page. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't received any notification 75.72.176.22. You must notify other users about this. Before I edited these articles, they were all written without neutrality relying on opinions, biased websites, and personal blogs that were all created to slander. So that's why I edited deleting all those UNRELIABLE SOURCES that does NOT meet the requirements of the Policy of Misplaced Pages. I really wanted to add secondary sources but couldn't find any RELIABLE SOURCES. Then, User Peter1007, Sam Sailor, and Superfly94 blanks the whole page without discussing in the TALK PAGE, using Unreliable Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ahn_Sahng-hong#References_that_are_all_UNRELIABLE_SOURCES https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God#References_that_are_all_UNRELIABLE_SOURCES mentioned by Galemw2. Watts9595 and I agreed to this, and yet Peter1007, Sam Sailor, Superfly94 did NOT reply to these problematic unreliable sources. They just reverted to their previous edits using these Unreliable Sources. You cannot say that a religion is "CULT" or "HERETIC" in Misplaced Pages. Basically every edit that they have made defines the religion "CULT" or "HERETIC." Please be neutral. Thanks. Nancyinthehouse (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Nancy, you were the one editor who actually was notified, here. It looks like it was put on your talk page out of sequence, which may be why you did not notice it.

On a different topic, you may wish to familiarize yourself with WP:RS. If you "couldn't find any RELIABLE SOURCES" then one option is to add citation needed tags so that other editors may be alerted and try to find sources. Reliable sources are absolutely required and if they can't be found it may be that the article needs to be reduced to a stub.

On a third topic, I notice that you did not create your talk page initially, but it was created by Peter1007 with the following text: "I'm going to assume that you are a member of the WMSCOG. Please correct me if I'm wrong. We are trying to create a complete article about the World Mission Society Church of God, Ahn Sahnghong and Chang Gil Jah." This raises a question of conflict of interest. Misplaced Pages encourages extreme caution when editing a subject that you are close to, please see WP:COI. JanetteDoe (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's very frustrating to edit these pages, for a while I almost gave up. If you make any changes that is are n/ot from their official site, they would revert the change. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the information is not always at an organization's page, otherwise there would be no point on having Misplaced Pages. I'm not a member of the WMSCOG but I've been researching a lot about them and everybody I ask, they tell me that even through the way they write and defend it, Nancyinthehouse, Galemw2 and Watts9595 sound like WMSCOG members. It wouldn't be surprising if their IPs are also from South Korea. I haven't seen anybody writing in the Misplaced Pages article that the WMSCOG is a "cult" or that they are "heretic". I think they are only trying to act like the victims. I invite any admin to see if "every edit that they have made defines the religion "CULT" or "HERETIC". Right now the World Mission Society Church of God is just pretty much the WMSCOG website in Misplaced Pages. Nancyinthehouse, if you want to discuss further with me you can go to my talk page, don't want to take the space of the admins. --Peter1007 (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

When mentioning another editor in a post on a page they do not necessarily follow closely, as you e.g. did here , it can be a good idea to "ping" them using {{U}}. Commenting directly on another user's editorial behavior, e.g. when you imply on your own talk page that my editing is unspecified WP:NNPOV, my behavior WP:OWN, and outright accuse me for derogatively "considering other religions as "cults"." (all without providing any reasons for your concern, but your reply is expected in the appropriate thread), a {{TB}} on my talk page could have initiated a dialogue towards resolving any such problems. You now continue here and state that I have blanked "the whole page." Please provide a diff supporting this statement so an admin may correct my mistake. Sam 🎤 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

JanetteDoe, I have mentioned in the talkpage https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ahn_Sahng-hong#Dispute long ago. I'm not a member of WMSCOG, as I have told Peter1007 to begin with. Peter1007 you are acting like a victim as IF you own the articles of the religious movement, the founder. You said you have nothing to do with WMSCOG and the messiah claiming person, and you are digging in sources that reject the requirements of the Policy of Misplaced Pages. You are using unreliable sources and you never reply (or cannot reply) to the explanation made in the talkpage. The sources are false fliers, book that was found guilty to be used or published, and biased websites that only considers other religions cults. NO I'm NOT a member of the WMSCOG or related to it. Stop defining other's identity with your own imagination Peter1007. I don't know why you are so EAGER to make these articles with unreliable sources. It just seems that you personally hate this religious movement or messiah claiming person. It was 75.72.176.22 who first wrote on this noticeboard and Not me. That's why I came.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been sitting back and avoiding any major edits on these two pages, except for reverting the recent blanking, because I've had my hand slapped a couple of times so am content for now to hit up the talk pages to work things out there. I have asked Nancyinthehouse several times to provide specific examples of what sites she considers are unreliable so that we can address each one, but she is adamant that any reference she has not provided is unreliable and that anyone using any other reference is trying to slander the WMSCOG

1. a
2. b.

Watts9595 prefers to simply egg people on without providing any type of rational argument

1. a
2. b
3. c
4. d.

I have a strong suspicion that Watts9595 is in fact Sticks830, as is evidenced by the following retort #. You'll notice that this entry was done by 75.67.112.116 but signed by Sticks830. 75.67.112.116 also seems to be playing along in the blanking #

The only editor who seems to be willing to address each item separately is Galemw2 at both talk pages here and here. I have been trying to answer things piecemeal but there is a lot there. Unfortunately I don't seem to be working fast enough for Nancyinthehouse here. Superfly94 (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You'll all have to sort out these two articles on their talk pages as I've fully protected them. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeated Personal attacks

I have warned Subtropical-man (talk · contribs) about NPA several times. The user does not like WP:NFC and thinks that he can ignore it. During a discussion I asked Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to assist in trying to explain policy because I know that they understand non-free content very well and are fairly good at getting that information across to users who dont necessarily get the policy when informed about it. They have made multiple posts accusing me and Black Kite of abuses, manipulation, and meat-puppetry. These outrageous personal attacks need to stop. I have attempted to warn the user about it but I am ignored. I can pull multiple diffs but is a recent example of his repeated claims Werieth (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Now he is going back and revising his comments to assert the "fact" that enforcing WP:NFCC is "bad". Can we please get a NFC topic ban on Subtropical-man to end this madness? Werieth (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

sorry, I do not understand - as a statement of fact is a personal attack? how to write fact that dozens of users consider your methods as bad (without personal attack)? I do not intend to attack anyone, I wanted to write some facts. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling another's edits bad, because you disagree with them is a personal attack. Its not dozens of users, there are about 6 or so that are causing the drama. If you take a look at the files I am removing and NFC you will see that my actions are according to policy. However because you are invested with the articles where I removed files you are unable to step back and review it from a neutral perspective. Werieth (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

with "6", you have edit-wars. Number of users against a much larger. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• several times? please links to this several times?
• your and Black Kite edits are wrong by multiple users wikipedia, see dozens discussions, edit-wars with you and other.
• also you are using personal attacks and slander, for example: . I suggest finish writing these things (I and You), and focus on the substantive discussion to be a consensus between you and Black Kite and rest of users. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Because people do not agree with NFC. In at least one case I brought here to ANI and the user was blocked for noncompliance. There is consensus its WP:NFC you just dont accept it. Werieth (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"NFC you just dont accept it" - this is also personal attack - slander, again. I accept NFC, but I and many other users not accept your over-interpretation of NFC and methods remove of files. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with this edit by Werieth or its edit summary. I'm trying to parse the grammar of the comments linked by Werieth; it's not easy, but what I see is not acceptable. The claims of meatpuppetry are of course baseless, and without a shred of evidence (there is no evidence, besides the fact that both Black Kite and Werieth seem to have a correct grasp of NFC) such accusations are indeed personal attacks. The last controversial addition of such content was here and Subtropical-man was subsequently warned by Black Kite; I hope the editor will think twice about another such edit. If it happens, they should be blocked. A topic ban may be discussed later, but for now I think zero tolerance toward adding such content, and toward making personal accusations, is in order. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  Despite the fact that offended me in the description of editing and writing slander about me. I do not intend to attack anyone, I wanted to write some facts. If someone is offended - sorry. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  Again with the personal attacks, My comments are not slander. Werieth (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry, my English is still weak (I'm still learning), maybe better word is "aspersion" or "libel", generally: writing not the truth about someone. By the way, writing about edit by someone as trolling is also personal attack. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  Again calling my comments anything similar to what you are saying is a personal attack. I am not not saying anything un-true, I just think your understanding of NFC is incomplete. Have you ever considered that due to English not being your primary language that you might not be understanding the policies correctly? I know English is an extremely difficult language to learn. Take a few days to read through the archives of WT:NFC you will come to understand WP:NFC a lot better. Right now I dont think you are seeing the complete picture. The images you are trying to force back into articles are no where close to meeting the criteria set forth by WP:NFC.

  I tend to consider the type of post that you made full of abusive statements and incorrect information trolling. (Whether or not you intended it to be, it was) Werieth (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Libel" is just as bad as "slander". I explained above why "trolling" isn't so bad here--it's because you made baseless accusations of meatpuppetry. Now, I'll give you a very useful English expression: when you're in a hole, stop digging. Really, stop digging: move on to something else, and drop the stick. Werieth, you too: you made your case, a possible remedy is proposed, let's move on. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Indonesian vandal range block?

Re-reporting the problem raised some days ago at ANI (archived), whereby anon editors overwrite content of Indonesian football club articles with fantasy name, badge, achievements, ownership, coaching and playing staff, and match schedule. For the 36 hours that ANI thread was open, there was no vandalism. Once the thread was archived, the vandalism resumed, and since then three further pages, Persih Tembilahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Persenga Nganjuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and a couple of hours ago PSBL Bandar Lampung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have been overwritten with the same nonsense.

All the IPs are in the range 114.79.16.xxx to 114.79.19.xxx. Would a range block be feasible? or any other helpful suggestions? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Range 114.79.16.0/22 (up to 1024 users would be blocked). Though the range is small, there seems to be several people making useful edits from the range. I think a better choice is page protection. I will semi-protect Persih Tembilahan, Persenga Nganjuk, PSBL Bandar Lampung, and Persema Malang for a week. If the problem persists after that point, please apply for another round of protection at WP:RFPP. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Pity about the range. I suspect they'll just find another unprotected target next time they have spare time to kill. But thank you anyway. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's likely to happen, and if it does, please list it at WP:RFPP for some protection. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

1RR restriction at 2013 Ghouta attacks?

Greetings, I was wondering if an admin could have a look at 2013 Ghouta attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to see if a 1RR restriction would be warranted. Since information on the subject is rapidly emerging, it would be great if we could avoid full protection on that article, which I fear is the only alternative. No notifications sent, since I am not trying to target any individual here. VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: The article was full protected until 29 September. Dusti 09:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

ñ== Disruption by User:Wer900 ==

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

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

(Non-administrator comment) also see diff and diff of disruptive editing. -- Aunva6 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Narvekar ameya

Could someone please take a look at this page? It certainly doesn't seem to be an appropriate use of a user talk page. Not looking for any sanctions, just some more experienced eyes to perhaps figure out just what it is and if anything should be done about it. As I am not looking for any sanctions, is it still necessary to leave a notice on his talk page? I don't know how he would find it amid all the Sanskrit. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations. The material is all copied from various websites. For example, this came from here. Everything from 22 August forward needs to be removed - I will do it as revision deletions. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you maam! Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Anti -religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Visite fortuitement prolongée#Gatestone_Institute

I am asking for advice regarding what appears to be a disruptive pattern of editing which involves drive-by tagging and removal of citations from tens of articles in the past week (~250 edits in the past week alone, see . The common denominator to these edits were initially citations from articles published on gatestoneinstitute.org. user:Visite_fortuitement_prolongée initially removed several such quotations as copyvio (see diff and diff). Another editor reworded the quotes (diff) to avoid any such possible violation however the quotes were then removed by user:Visite_fortuitement_prolongée who tagged them as unreliable source (diff).

At the same time user:Visite_fortuitement_prolongée started applying the unreliable source tag to tens of different quotes from Gatestone articles on a variety of wikipedia topics, deleting many of these citations altogether. His edits are very rapid, moving from one topic to another at times at less than 1 minute intervals. For instance in 30 minutes (on August 27,2013 starting at 20:00 till 20:29 ) I counted edits in nearly 40 separate articles (is this even humanly possible without a script or a bot?). Among those later edits citations from another source(europenews.dk) in multiple separate topics were also deleted.

He doesn't discuss most of those changes in the articles' respective talk pages. I mentioned in his user's talk page several days ago that each citation has to be reviewed separately since "Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y"; I also mentioned that "sources needn't necessarily be neutral, unbiased, or objective" to which he answered "indeed" (User talk:Visite fortuitement prolongée#Gatestone_Institute) and continued nonetheless with the same behavior.

I ask for guidance on how to approach this as the editor basically ignored my 3 entries on his talk page in the past week and these edits are ballooning at an unmanageable pace. N1of2 (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

VFP is correct about the source not being reliable. If you want to retain the content, you should find a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that one cannot make a blanket assumption that a source is unreliable for all statements; each statement needs to be evaluated on its own merits. In this case many different authors /articles cited in multiple different wikipedia articles were mass tagged and deleted without individual consideration. N1of2 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there places where a VFP Gatestone source was being used to support statements about itself or its members? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean Gatestone Institute source? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I originally wrote something else, changed my edit, and wasn't very thorough. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an error above, in "user:Visite_fortuitement_prolongée initially removed several such quotations as copyvio tagged them as unreliable source". This month I always tagged as unreliable (for example 569455895 and 569456468) before deleting as copyvio (for example 569456507 and 569456861). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please also notice that I did not deleted when needed as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (see for example Israeli targeted killings or Civilian casualty ratio) and when needed as biography (see for example Tuvia Tenenbom or Richard Miniter). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

disruptive editing at WP:COI

as much as i feel like i generally agree with hir, Cantaloupe2 is, i feel, disruptively editing the CoI policy page. moving around to different sections, but unwilling, despite my attempts to engage on either page or user talk, to come to consensus before making substantial edits that affect the entire WP environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎UseTheCommandLine (talk • contribs)

response I asked for explanation and discussion, but I have not been given any explanation beyond that you feel that you disagree. I have explained the edits quite thoroughly. I would like each objections hashed out, item by item, but so far you have not done so and you brought the issue here. What would you think is an amicable resolution here?

I have provided a thoroughly explanation in the TALK page discussion. I provided you with Misplaced Pages's definition of consensus and some citations that clarifies my premise. I'm unclear as to what exactly it is you find objectionable and your response seems to rather philosophical and ambiguous. The definition of consensus came from Misplaced Pages's cosensus policy page. In response to your statement "Look, while not a core policy, this is a significant and substantial one. " , I asked why it is significant and substantial, but no response was provided.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

immediately after responding here, this editor went to my most recently edited article and was rather hasty in removing ELs, removing at least one RS. But i'm hoping most admins are the sort to immediately look into commenters' editing history, making this comment unnecessary. -- # ▄ 09:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The external links we add here must adhere to WP:EL. The San Francisco Chronicle you claim to have been removed was dead and it was replaced with a new URL that is alive. Please stay on topic. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

the EL in question, from this revision of the page, works just fine for me, thanks. -- # ▄ 09:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please reference edit. The San Francisco Chronicle is a good source. The pre-existing link, however was found to be stale as-found. I therefore, located the currently live URL and replaced it in source, then I removed it from the external link seciton per WP:ELRC but you accused me of removing a reliable source and re-inserted the old dead URL in an incorrect format hindering improvement effort. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This user has also been rather disruptive on WinCo Foods. While (s)he is in the right to bring up bias issues, they appear to be misusing the WP:COI template because they suspect, with minimal(1) evidence(2), that the anonymous editors are affiliated with the company. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For context, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Cantaloupe2 from January 2013, with some similar concerns about editing process and application of the COI guideline. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems pretty significant. Given what I've seen (and acknowledging that i might be biased, i did fly off the handle there a bit in an edit summary or two) I think this is a situation in immediate need of both a short term solution by administrators, and a long term solution up to and including arbitration. -- # ▄ 20:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet more context, not related to this particular incident at WP:COI but related to this particular editor: On another article in recent weeks, I have observed and been subject to disruptive editing by Cantaloupe2. Since not explicitly a part of this discussion, I'll hold the topic out of this thread for now, but would be happy to document if asked by an administrator to do so. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This user has continued their pattern of hostile editing and repeated changes to the WP:COI page without consensus. I have taken it to AN3 for now. Given the number of other editors who've chimed in about how this editor's behavior is clearly problematic, though, I still believe it will require more significant/sustained administrator attention than AN3. -- # ▄ 02:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

request for response Please followup to the response I provided on the matter of the issue you raised. Thank you, Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of an image under discussion

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

I would be grateful if somebody could reinstate the "broom" election-symbol image at article Aam Aadmi Party (cf this version), while the image remains under discussion at Misplaced Pages:NFCR#Multiple_non-free_logos_for_same_organisation.

My understanding is that while an image is under discussion at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD standard procedure is to leave it in place, so (1) people can easily see the image being discussed and its use in situ, and (2) so that the image doesn't get auto-deleted as orphaned content while the discussion is still ongoing.

There is a reasonable discussion to be had that, since this is the image that the party needs to identify itself with on the ballot-paper, this is a image that is significant to the topic of the article (NFCC #8), and the textlogo does not convey the same function (NFCC #1). I accept that others have taken different views; but while the discussion is still open, our convention is to keep the image up.

I have tried to persuade Sitush (talk · contribs) of this (it being he who originally nominated the image for discussion, and has most recently removed it), but to no avail.

I have already made two reverts, so don't want to put it back myself. So I am coming here (even though this may seem a bit trivial for AN/I), to ask an experienced user to take a view and reinstate the image until the discussion at WP:NFCR is formally concluded. Jheald (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. After some to-ing and fro-ing with the image, it was deleted at Commons as being a copyright violation. I then queried at WP:NFR whether or not we could use two non-free images for the purpose of identifying this political party - all perfectly good faith stuff. Jheald reinstated the image during that discussion, it was left for a while and then Seraphimblade removed it following another discussion at Commons which resulted in the alternate image being determined as {{PD-Text}} and thus made the one currently under dispute potentially in breach of NFCC #1. Jheald has been arguing exceptions, which is fine but until the exceptions are accepted by the community this remains a potential breach of our policies. I've said on umpteen occasions that I am not good with image-related stuff but it seems obvious to me that if there is a potential breach then the thing should be removed until that is clarified. Furthermore, Jheald is repeatedly mis-stating the purpose of this image (the party does not need the image on the ballot paper for example, nor does it otherwise use it) and is making some pretty odd claims along the lines that it is impossible to judge on merit unless it is shown in the article. There is no admin action needed here, just a bit of common sense: two discussions at Commons, a good faith centralised discussion at NFR and only one person attempting to keep it in the en-WP article. Let the NFR discussion be closed, by all means, but otherwise this is not a matter for ANI. - Sitush (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User posting copyvio, removing AfD headers, etc

Special:Contributions/Boss02 does not seem to understand that one can not remove AfD headers. Also he's removing CSD tags for copyright violations, and his files he's uploaded are all currently marked as PUF. Seems he just doesn't understand how to follow Wiki rules. Caffeyw (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Also it appears the account started it's first edit on Aug 8. I'm suspecting user IP 180.149.0.249 is also the same user. They're editing in the same fashion, removing AfD flags, and seem to be interested in the same articles, resulting in the same type of reverts to their changes. Caffeyw (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted one article as a duplicate and closed that AfD in favor of the older article/AfD. I haven't the time now to look at the other stuff, but I think there's some action necessary. —SpacemanSpiff 10:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree the editor is not the most clueful, however I only find removals of PROD tags, which are explicitly permitted (tag removal is exactly how you contest a PROD). Just for the record, can you link the edits where he removed AfD tags? --cyclopia 10:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Since Spaceman deleted the articles I can no longer pull up the information. Caffeyw (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Paglu_3_%282014_film%29&action=history will show where the IP has done it not once, but twice removing the AfD flag. An article of course created by Boss02. After doing a little looking at the fact that IPs all in the same close range seem to be doing the same things I'm came across this Sockpuppet_investigations/Niloy229/Archive The naming convention and IP seems to also go along with those listed. Add to the fact they're all interested in the same type of articles "Tollywood" films it seems like this is just an additional sock. Caffeyw (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just to note that I've cleaned up the copyright issue at Khoka 420. I don't know if it's relevant, but a Niloy229 sock flagged it for copyvio deletion on 4 August, and it was deleted accordingly (unfortunately, in error, since the blog it was supposedly copied from postdates the content). But that doesn't mean the Niloy229 sock didn't want the article, as he had been busily trying a copy-paste move to Khoka 420 (2012 film). If this were certainly a new contributor, I would drop him a friendly notice about what he can and can't do - both in regards to copying content from other sources (as he copied the plot here) and in regards to removing maintenance tags - and proceed accordingly if he continues, but if there is reason to believe this is a sock I would leave that to others. I think it's very plausible. The sock taking action at Khoka 420 (2012 film) and Khoka 420 was User:Don02. I find the history of this article significant - almost significant enough for me to block immediately, but I'll leave that to people with more experience in SPI and, perhaps, time. :) --Moonriddengirl 10:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am very much worried about this user. He is working about Bengali Film related article. ( which I do too!). But he is ignoring all wiki policies. His another article Best Movies Of Tollywood , which is totally OR. He may be sock of user:Niloy229 - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 11:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I've NAC'd the duplicate AFD for Paglu 3 (2014 film) in favour of the original one which had more participants. I've also replaced the AFD tags at that article with the ones relating to the original AFD which remains open (though heading for a WP:SNOW deletion). Stalwart111 11:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• With a few more minutes of review, I'm seeing enough quacking for me - new account created several days after the block of the last, immediately picks up the actions. Indeffed. --Moonriddengirl 11:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• Template:INDO These are regular issues, see this and there are reports in almost every noticeboard. Like others, I also think there are many socks involved here. --Tito☸Dutta 13:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Prizren article fighting

Hi there, I just want to point out that the article Prizren is in danger. I have spent a lot of time on the past on this article, and there are a few pro serbian radicals who continue to make this article pro serb and removal all other information. I spent a lot of time to collect rare media User_talk:Mdupont#Orphaned_non-free_media_.28File:Prizren_14_May_1934_GermanyLang.ogv.29 that is being removed among other things, I dont have the time to fight this any more, but I do want to ask someone who does to review this. I would suggest to put some type of stop to the heated fighting on this article and put someone neutral in charge of monitoring edits. thanks mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am the one who removed the files due to excessive non-free files of a town. Werieth (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:autovandalbot is malfunctioning and turned rogue against its creator

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

help my vandal bot went rouge and is now trying to block other bots

please help me fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehautobot (talk • contribs) 13:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have gotten the username wrong - the rogue account is User:Tehautobot, which has already been indeffed for a particularly stupid bit of shenanigans. Autovandalbot isn't a real user, so I deleted that bit of vandalism as well. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User Mckhan issuing unwanted warnings

Hi this user Mckhan doesnt agree on the sources that i supply to him on his talk page but instead issues me with warnings. On articles like "Rohail Hyatt" he has reverted my edits and has added no sources to that. While i have given him sources, also on article "Shahid Masood" he was not able to provide me with sources but instead just kept issuing warnings to me.His past record clearly indicates he just wants to add information he feels right. If you can look upon the reverts of these articles i hope you will find the answer and if you also have a look at his contributions mostly are in the form of edit wars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I have yet to see a "wanted" warning - that's why they're warnings. But on the face of it, this seems very much like a content dispute escalating into disruption. It would be helpful if you and User:McKahn would back away from each other and the topic for a bit, let tempers cool down. Then maybe a proper discussion could continue. I see allegations of racial and ethnic bias floating around your talk pages, and that's bothersome - some cooling down time might not be out of order. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Guess what, M.H. again!

I have added information to the SPI on this user, which they keep deleting.  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me to me (as per my comments on the SPI), but I also believe it to be a violation of WP:TPO, and interference with administrative processes. (User was just warned in yesterday's ANI about refactoring and deleting other's comments)Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, as I saif to Hijiri 88 yesterday, and per my general comments in the original AN/I, you need to disengage from each other. The dispute had died down and was happily waiting for SPI clerk notice - had that shown no connection then it might have been appropriate to raise the images issue in a non-confrontational way. As it is you've just re-ignited the drama for no really good reason. As with Hijiri 88; you need to unwatch those pages and walk away. --Errant 17:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If we have access to the evidence now, why not add that evidence to the SPI now? It may eliminate the need for CU, which is supposed to be a last resort? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 Please get off my back. I have just contacted Misplaced Pages emergency email about the mocking way you have placed my photos. You should never so such things! This is the 2nd time you do that (the first time was publishing my blog screenshot which you unlawfully uploaded falsely claiming it's your own work. I spent the day helping another editor and am now wasting 2 hours on this attack of yours. MH (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 has agreed to step away. I've endorsed the SPI for a CU so it can get resolved ASAP (removing the point of contention for everyone). Hopefully both of you can get on in peace. --Errant 17:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Michael has now been blocked, but based on a separate SPI: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Photopinka. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Block needed

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

• Niqaluva (talk · contribs) needs a block.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't see this, but saw the edit and blocked. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

abusive user Jerry Pepsi

hello. user jerry pepsi https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jerry_Pepsi is being malicious and vandalizing the page http://en.wikipedia.org/Polyamory:_Married_%26_Dating he keeps undoing our factual edits simply to start a fight. for example, we keep including information like, megan is the girlfriend of 3 years, and he keeps undoing it. we believe he feels he owns this page and is not being a team player. he also continues to write the cast's full names when their full names are not associated with the show (aside from media articles, which he provided one that only identifies 4 of the cast members). we ask that you please ask him to stop or prevent him from further editing the page. "tvfanatics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvfanatics (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you just bring this here a few days ago? Also, do you have diffs of his unproductive editing, instigating, or failure to abide by WP:RS or WP:BLP? 192.76.82.90 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Also, you haven't notified the editor about this thread. You only said you've e-mailed Misplaced Pages about his actions. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Is TVfanatics royalty of some sort? If not, then the only other reason I can think of for him to write "our factual edits...", "we keep including..." and "we ask.....", is that he is some way represents the TV show in question, Polyamory:Married & Dating. If that is the case, then TVfanatics should probably read our policies on not using Misplaced Pages as a promotional medium and editing with a conflict of interest. TVfanatics should also be apprised that the article does not in any way belong to the production or its producers, or even its fans, and that any attempt to assert ownership of the article by shutting out the contributions of other editors, or by insisting that the "ground rules" for the reality show be followed by Misplaced Pages as well, is going to end up badly for him.... them... whomever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Pepsi, on the other hand, should stop calling the other editor in an content dispute a "vandal" in edit summaries, as he has done a number of times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've requested temporary full protection of the article to get the combatants to start talking to each other, after which, if they don't start playing nicely together, an admin may have to deal out some blocks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Notified Jerry Pepsi of this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article for four days. — Mr. Stradivarius 22:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm more than happy to engage with this editor to try to hash something out. In fact I have made those overtures at least a half dozen times, on his talk page, on my talk page and on the article's talk page. I have tried to explain various editing conventions (how episode numbers are reported in the infobox, how participation is recorded by season, etc.). I advised the editor through several warnings that removing valid sourced information for no valid reason could be considered vandalism and lead to consequences for his account. I explained in edit summaries and on the article talk page why various edits were being made and various pieces of information included. I received nothing in response beyond accusations of harassment and trolling.
• It's hard to find a middle ground when dealing with an editor who believes that ] does not meet the threshold for reliability. It is difficult to find common ground with an editor who changes his/her reasons for his/her actions from one edit to the next.
• I also suspect, based on the single-purpose nature of the editing, that User:Swingerlove is a sock puppet of Tvfanatics, who I also believe has a conflict of interest based on his/her statement that he is editing on behalf of the show. If these are the same person then one, the other or both should be blocked. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Sarot23 quacks about Nicholas Alahverdian

Further to this ANI discussion and this sockpuppetry investgation, would someone please block the latest sock, User:Sarot23? Since this is not a simple case of self-promotion and has BLP implications (see the original ANI report), I suggest salting Nicholas Alahverdian and Nick Alahverdian to make future attempts just that little bit more difficult. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• This page should not be speedily deleted because the article has citations from The Boston Globe, Associated Press, The Providence Journal, NBC and CBS affiliates, and other national sources. Sarot23 (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleted (G4) and salted. Are there other alternate spellings that should also be dealt with? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 20:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sock blocked. --Rschen7754 20:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd suggest salting Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al and similar titles, to try and reduce the effectiveness of any future socks. That, or an abuse filter for the surname might help. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

An edit filter might be better, if only because it would also catch the insertion of the case into unrelated or loosely related pages (as with this). UltraExactZZ ~ Did 20:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 Confirmed sock of Fred newman (talk · contribs) - Alison 22:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Other articles this sock has a history of editing to add information to are Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth & Families, John J. McConnell, Jr., Robert G. Flanders, Jr., United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Matthew Fabisch, and Manatee Palms Youth Services. If a couple of other editors will add them to your watchlist or add a filter to prevent the repeated additions of the same photos and paragraphs about Alaverdian's non-notable lawsuit, that would be great. Thanks! NewAccount4Me (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, here is a link to the second ANI that has since been closed. Just so we keep all the records of this mess together (this is the third related ANI). NewAccount4Me (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Mmay2, redux

• Mmay2 (talk · contribs)

(Restoring this after it was deleted without explanation) Adding 'siblings' to infoboxes of multiple articles on mythology. I've requested oversight of this account before. History that includes copyright violations and serial additions of unsourced content, often erroneous or just overzealous. Doesn't explain edits or engage in discussion, and cumulatively these sorts of edits, while not literally vandalism, are disruptive. Some assistance would be appreciated, especially when dealing with a user who requires others to sweep up behind them on a regular basis. Thanks, JNW (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem IP range

Further to the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive808#Possible_Problematic_IP_Range, the vandalism is ongoing. I have collated all the problematic IP addresses below. Interestingly there seem to be two ranges (2602:304 and 2600:1006) so I don't know what is going on there, but there is a huge overlap and a similar MO. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I was just in the process of doing the same work. This list of I.P addresses is the same editor and an absolute pest. I am pretty sure they are block evading but I haven't had time to go back and match against registered usernames who have been blocked. Support a long block for all of these I.P numbers. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• 2600:1006:B00D:30F5:C91C:4177:4B2E:941F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (May 8)
• 2600:1006:B120:CCCC:9C55:8353:686:199E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (May 8)
• 2600:1006:B128:76E6:D71C:4EE9:B640:3976 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (May 28)
• 2600:1006:b121:805f:8969:dcf8:80b5:3b4c (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 8)
• 2600:1006:B11E:79D6:E088:FCD5:D35B:C1F9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 13)
• 2600:1006:B10C:8A77:DEAF:987A:431C:4A41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 14)
• 2600:1006:B121:90C4:FCB8:11C9:7EA:1258 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (June 15)
• 2600:1006:B116:B0B4:93A7:BE9E:5DC3:9F7B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 16)
• 2600:1006:B113:DF3E:D6D4:C04E:C952:D765 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 18)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:5085:2436:2F06:8253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 21)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:8161:20E5:4812:6CAF (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 22)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:7C87:6003:D0DC:F798 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 23)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:E83E:A792:7798:A961 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 24)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:A0CE:8C9F:2737:DF4B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 24)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:C19A:A376:C9AD:25C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 25)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:8DE7:A919:12DE:D0A9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 25)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:598A:E225:CC32:756E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (June 25)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:AD42:5402:9D3:F2BF (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (June 25)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:7C61:46EB:E03F:5D2D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 26)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:6CC4:C07F:AEE8:A53F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 26)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:F165:F628:4232:ED76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 28)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:EC09:2593:5ED5:53AB (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (June 28)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:B137:43AA:F356:85F0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 28)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:922:2AC4:C2AF:B609 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 28)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:1545:7DE8:35BD:F71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 29)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:5849:DF70:94:898F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 30)
• 2602:304:CD01:1F59:695F:67EF:B28D:C510 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 30)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:C1CD:C4F5:41CA:D57E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 1)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:31EC:6415:6846:32AD (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 2)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:4DC4:24B6:BA6A:55A9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 3)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:3D34:580A:B97F:F635 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 3)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:BC78:8796:1777:7754 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 4)
• 2600:1006:B12D:B804:E2F8:EABA:AB30:754E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (July 4)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:4D18:EA16:7F72:4A6E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 7)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:89:67FF:96F4:5A6F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 8)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:A4A2:B867:8C97:2004 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 8)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:5D64:3D6A:1606:85C8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (July 9)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:9931:357C:17C5:FAB6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (July 9)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:6C8D:3732:9B0D:44B2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 10)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:C98D:A4D8:2C3E:4A8D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 11)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:88A2:BBB2:D3C3:5E85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 11)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:AC44:2834:CF66:E28C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 12)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:2C4B:F6A:56CB:384B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (july 13)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:3452:FAAE:480E:958B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (july 13)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:480E:FF16:D5A:90DF (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 13)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:7000:9355:2DE6:8B16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, Warnings (July 14)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:1C8B:93FD:27BA:B0D1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (July 23)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:9077:650A:B40D:66E8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (July 26)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:7D9E:7FF5:2713:452F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (July 26)
• 2600:1006:B10C:8748:A93:BFB:6DEA:4579 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (Aug 4)
• 2600:1006:B11D:90F7:CF99:6D89:DA26:7727 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (Aug 9)
• 2600:1006:B108:23BC:57CD:B7C9:775D:54B9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (August 15)
• 2600:1006:B127:6F24:9AB8:2E7D:C1C1:C836 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (August 16)
• 2600:1006:B123:7502:C86D:9705:C421:DDE (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (Aug 18)
• 2600:1006:B124:DB15:1369:665:1593:700E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (Aug 20)
• 2600:1006:B100:6E88:DA40:D1D3:F90E:C8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (Aug 21)
• 2600:1006:B10A:82A7:59F4:6D7:E95E:A797 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (Aug 22)
• 2600:1006:B121:8B8C:A259:526B:BE1A:C78F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (Aug 26)
• 2600:1006:B107:41A4:4F32:BD88:12AE:3703 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, Warnings (Aug 26)
• 2600:1006:B11D:20E1:B00D:3476:D1F9:5437 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (Aug 27)
• 2600:1006:B111:45F1:1C11:610B:F420:A9E1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, Warnings (Aug 28)
• 2600:1006:B117:ECB:83BB:F313:3F6F:D35D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (Aug 29)

• I'm a bit shaky on IPv6 rangeblocks, but I think these two ranges are 2600:1006:B100::/56 and 2602:0304:AF53:3E99::/64. (Someone will need to check that, before I block half the USA). I'm guessing that's a single user on a home IP (the latter /64) and possibly a work or mobile range (the /56)? Black Kite (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think your mistaken regarding the /56. While I probably understand it even less, the chart at mediawiki.org/Help:Range_blocks/IPv6 suggests you would need a much larger rangeblock, as best I can tell a /42. /56 would appear to cover only 2600:1006:B100:0000-2600:1006:B100:00ff. Monty₈₄₅ 03:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

User:OTEx

• OTEx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ishishgibberish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:OTEx has appeared at Talk:September 11 attacks with what appears to be a Truther agenda, demanding the placement of POV tags and accusing other editors , and possibly the government of hijacking the article. They moved on to focus-on-contributors-not-content and baiting . Based on my engagement on User talk:OTEx they're concealing their primary account and basically beating around the bush . They were warned about the general 9/11 arbitration enforcement sanctions and are clearly in violation of the original, narrow sanction terms. I've blocked a sockpuppet account, User:Ishishgibberish, as OTEx's "cypher changed itself by the sheer power of its will." Whatever. Since I don't consider myself an uninvolved editor for the purpose of 9/11-related sanctions, I'm asking for a review of OTEx's behavior and appropriate action. Acroterion (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

A good block that should be followed up with a block to User:OTEx; that user wasted more of our time then we should've allowed. OhNoitsJamie 01:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

After taking a look at Talk:September 11 attacks#Unlock the article I suggest an indef block per WP:NOTHERE. Admins should not take the trouble to go through the Arbcom sanctions process for someone who is making no effort to contribute in a normal way. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That's probably the most practical approach. I strongly suspect that this is someone who was sanctioned under the arbitration remedy some years ago, returning to try to settle scores, but it's not really worth the trouble to find out who it might be. Acroterion (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Rummel, Rudolph J. (1996). Death By Government. Transaction Publishers. p. 234. ISBN 1412821290.
2. Rummel, Rudolph J. (1998). Statistics of democide : genocide and mass murder since 1900. Münster: Lit. p. 85. ISBN 3825840107.
3. Justin McCarthy (1983). Muslims and Minorities: The Population of Ottoman Anatolia and the End of the Empire. New York University Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-5390-3. Retrieved 24 August 2013.
4. Chatty, Dawn (2010). Displacement and Dispossession in the Modern Middle East. Cambridge University Press. p. 86. ISBN 9780521817929. At the end of the war, nearly 1.2 million Muslims in western Anatolia had died. Of the Anatolian Greeks, more than 3 13,000 died.
5. Maimonides, Hilkoth Išuth 10:7. Compare TB Ketubbot 11a; 82b
6. Qāfiḥ 1961, pp. 140‒141.
7. TB Ketubbot 54b.
8. According to Numbers Rabba 9:8, as well as Mishnah Ketubbot 7:6, whenever a married woman goes out publicly with her head uncovered, it is an act tantamount to exposing herself in public while naked, or what the Torah calls "erwah" (Heb. ערוה), and such an act would constitute grounds for a divorce without a settlement, as it is written: "…for he found in her a thing of nakedness" – (Heb. כי מצא בה ערות דבר) – Deut. 24:1.
9. Berešit Rabba 52:13.
10. Berešit Rabba, ibid.
11. So was I told by the late Rabbi Yosef Qāfiḥ, of blessed memory. Still, it was often that the woman would voluntarily waiver her rights to payment in order that her husband becomes willing to give her a divorce. In such cases, a court document was drawn up to that effect. For examples of this, see: Yehudah Nini (editor), al-Misawwadeh: Court ledger of Ṣan‘ā’'s Jewish community in the 18th century; Hebrew Translation by Nissim Benyamin Gamli’eli. Tel-Aviv 2001.
12. On the use of this term in Yemenite tradition, see: Yosef Tobi, Anecdotes on the Jews of Yemen from Responsa. A Tribe and Nation, VII (1973), pp. 271-291.
13. The above episode was relayed to me by R. Šalom b. Slaymān Cohen, born in Ṣan‘ā’ 1912.
14. Šulḥan Arukh, Even Ha-‛Ezer, 95:1
15. Maimonides, Hilkoth Išuth 16:4
16. According to the Talmud (Qiddušin 11b), as also explained by Maimonides (Hilkoth Išuth 10:8), the denarii mentioned here are coins having each the silver content of 1/8 that of the Holy Šeqel. Mahriṣ writes in his Tiklāl ‘Eṣ Ḥayyim, vol. I, p. 291b (the Redemption of the Firstborn), that the Holy Šeqel had, after the 20 % surcharge for redeeming one's son, the silver content of 20.16 grammes. This puts the weight of the Holy Šeqel at the time of Moses at only 16.128 grammes. This would mean that each denarius had the silver content of only 2.016 grammes. Maimonides adds that in addition to silver, these coins also had a copper alloy which amounted to seven times more than the volume made-up by the silver. The total aggregate of silver in two-hundred denarii amounts to 403.2 grammes, or what is the equivalent of twenty-five Holy Šeqels. (The silver content found in thirty-two U.S. Kennedy half-dollars of the 1964 mint, along with a little more than one-fourth of yet another U.S. Kennedy half-dollar, are the equivalent of the same. Each U.S. Kennedy half dollar of that mint weighs 12.5 grammes, and is of pure, unalloyed silver.) Needless to say, formerly, the purchasing power of this sum of money was greater than what it is today.
17. The Hebrew word used here is nedunya, or what is sometimes translated as 'the bride's outfit' (trousseau). The word is more correctly translated as 'largess,' or 'dowry,' since it is traditionally bestowed upon a man's daughter by her father before she marries, and she brings the same money and items into the marriage (whether it be money, jewellery or household effects), and which, if her husband takes responsibility over them, are deemed as merely a loan unto him, which he is able to freely make use of while married to her, but must return them unto her father in the event of his wife's early death. If the woman's father were a liberal man, he would not demand the return of such items. See: Maimonides, Hilkoth Išuth 16:1.
18. In Ṣan‘ā’ the custom was to write a fixed sum of one-hundred silver- qaflas in the ketubba of all virgins as the value of the nedunya (dowry). In the case of all widows or divorced women, the fixed sum was fifty silver- qaflas. The qafla was a weight equivalent to about 3.2 grammes. Mahriṣ writes in ‘Eṣ Ḥayyim (the Ketubba Version) that in the days of R. Yiḥye al-Bašīrī they made an enactment in the city of Ṣan‘ā’, that all financial obligations pledged by the husband to his wife should be written out in the local currency of those days. For example, for every 'one-hundred qaflas' of that ancient coin, there were actually only twenty-two qaflas of a pure and unalloyed silver content, while the rest was copper. This means that one-hundred qaflas was equal to 70.4 grammes of silver, excluding the copper content
19. In Ṣan‘ā’, this, too, was a fixed sum, written in the ketubba of every virgin. Widows and divorced women were given a fixed sum of half this price.
20. Meaning, the exit way from her house, as also the entranceway, should be facing the road or main street that is used by the Jews (‘Eṣ Ḥayyim).
21. By this is understood that the husband is obligated to provide his wife with household effects, such as a well, a millstone, toilet facilities, etc. It also implies providing her with a decent burial, and all other obsequies (‘Eṣ Ḥayyim).
22. The Hebrew word employed here is tosefeth, or what is translated by some as 'the increment.' This, too, was a fixed sum subscribed by all grooms in Ṣan‘ā’ and given to their espoused virgins, along with the principal (or dower's price), in the event of their divorcing their wives, or in the event of death. This sum was traditionally made out to be half of that of the principal. For example, if a virgin's ketubba was valued at 200 zuz, the increment was made out at one-hundred. If a widow's ketubba was valued at 100 zuz, the increment was made out at fifty. The custom in Yemen was not to consolidate these different financial obligations, or pledges, into one single, aggregate sum as is practised by some communities. Rather, all financial obligations were written out as individual components, and had the same fixed sums for all persons.
23. The Hebrew word used here is ‘iqar, or what is known as the 'principal liability' (i.e., two-hundred zuz or dinarius if he had married a virgin, or one-hundred if he had married a widow), to be paid unto the bride from her husband's property, in the event of her husbands' death, or of her being divorced by her husband.
24. The sense here is to the "kinyan sudar" (lit. "habit purchase"), which, in Yemen was always done by the bridegroom holding on to the corner of the Rabbi's talith (Prayer Shawl) which had been fitted with tzitzith (tassels). That is to say, the Rabbi who officiates over the betrothals allows the groom to hold on to the end of his mantle, with the tassel, at which time the Rabbi says to the groom, "Purchase by this fit clothing," etc. (see: "Ketavim," vol. i, pp. 16-17, note 6, by Rabbi Yosef Qafiḥ. See also Yuda Levi Nahum, 1986, p. 162).
25. The Act of Purchase, or what is also called 'the cancellation of any statement' (biṭṭul muda‘a), is a ceremony that was also practised in divorces.
26. This co-signature on the Marriage Contract is believed to be that of R. David b. Yiḥye Ḥoṭer who served as President of the Court at Ṣan‛ā’ until the very year in which this deed was written.
27. "Whose inheritance is in the Garden of Eden," was an expression for someone who is already deceased.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards