Misplaced Pages

• Winkelvi has withdrawn his promise to stay out of articles where he has had disputes, and it is being argued out now on his user talk page. If I follow his argument correctly, he is upset that his promise did not result in an immediate unblock. He says, inter alia, I just feel duped, taken advantage of, and like a complete fool for doing what was asked. I believed it to be an actual agreement that would lead to being unblocked sooner. I don't like being made a fool of nor do I like being lied to. Because the other side of the agreement never materialized (and looks like it probably was never going to), I no longer feel obligated to follow through with my side of the agreement. Coretheapple (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• While it's tempting to do color commentary, there's enough eyes on the problem now. As the blocks expire, it might be better for everyone to give these users a wide berth and let WP:ROPE take precedent. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well yes of course, but if Winkelvi agrees to the very topic bans we've been discussing ad infinitum, then it surely needs to be noted in this thread. Ditto any changes in that. Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Clarification: Was There a Topic-Ban?

I am trying to see if the moderated dispute resolution of Meghan Trainor can be resumed now that the three editors are off block. My understanding is that Winklevi, Lips Are Movin, and MaranoFan were all blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring. There have been repeated statements about a formal or informal topic-ban on Winklevi, but I see no evidence that any topic-ban was ever formally imposed or informally accepted. Is that correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban was informally accepted yesterday, during his block. Winkelvi promised to abide by a voluntary topic ban from all of the articles in which he'd been involved in disputes, but then reneged after a few hours. Coretheapple (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Then there is no topic-ban, so he may participate in moderated dispute resolution. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. But I would suggest reading all of the foregoing before diving into this pool. Coretheapple (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As the substitute volunteer moderator at the dispute resolution noticeboard, I did a general close of the dispute resolution of Meghan Trainor. The article is still currently protected. Discussion at the talk page can continue, as can an RFC either at the talk page or at a project page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Closing discussed here. Coretheapple (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Extensive edit-warring, severe COI-violations and refusal to hear

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

For a long time now, the article Christ Myth Theory has been the subject of intense arguments. That people have different opinions is not a problem, but the user Renejs is violating a number of policies, and openly declaring he will continue to violate policies because he stand for the WP:TRUTH. The most immediate concern is his extensive edit warring at the article , , , , , , , . Even though several users have pointed this out on the talk page, Renejs declared he will continue to edit war because he is right. . Another problem related to the same user concerns WP:COI. The user has self-identified as Rene Salm, one of the laymen who has published about this fringe theory (fringe is a non-derogatory sense, just indicating it is rejected by most scholars) and his Misplaced Pages account is an WP:SPA to try to make his theory seem more mainstream. At the talk page of the article, several users have tried to reason with Renejs and explain the policies of conflict of interest, gaining consensus, and abstaining from edit warring , are just two of several examples. Having tried to reason with Renejs for weeks (even though several others have done it much more and much better than me), I told him yesterday as a final warning that unless he starts to abide by Misplaced Pages rules, ANI would be the only option , Bill the Cat 7 agreed while Martijn Meijering proposed Renejs should self-revert and promise to start following the rules . That would have been preferable, so I waited an extra day, but as Renejs just continues as before, convinced that his is the WP:TRUTH, there seem to be few remaining options. Last but not least, as CMT proponents always claim there is "conspiracy of Christians", I should point out that none of this is a comment on who actually is right or wrong, but on the never-ending policy violations by the SPA, especially coupled with his "promise" to continue to violate said policies.Jeppiz (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think we've got a really good basis for a topic ban here. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Unfortunately, this is a case that was deeply botched by the outgoing Arbitration Committee in order to close in 2014, and they failed to impose the requested discretionary sanctions, which would permit the topic-ban by arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is very much troubling. The most troubling diff is the January 2nd one where he says he will deliberately game the system by reverting to 3 times a day, opting that he has 'no other choice' to do such. This editor has been told repeatedly to stop, think, and listen and he seems to not think that they're actually saying that to him, or that it doesn't apply because he's right. A topic ban would be suitable, but I think that a 0RR restriction would be better; forcing him to not revert but discuss on talk page his changes, and try to get consensus for them would be better. That would negate all the reverting, and force him to present his changes on the talk page in an attempt to get consensus. Tutelary (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is more troubling than the COI he rather clearly has on this topic. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but technically, you aren't disallowed from editing the page, only strongly discouraged. The diff represented means that he's willing to game the system, violate the spirit of the edit warring policy, and ignore all objections. Tutelary (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I would never bring up a situation at ANI where a serious user had a COI, so what triggered the report was the extensive edit warring, the "promise" to continue and the refusal to hear. But I think the COI is a an additional problem in this context, as it adds another dimension to the problem with the SPA.Jeppiz (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reviewing this user's talk page history, it doesn't look good. The user seems to regularly use a claim to expertise as a justification for OR and discarding other editors' opinions (eg ). I'm not sure a TBAN is the right approach here - the problems seem more fundamental than related to a particular topic. GoldenRing (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the editor's entire history here, I don't know that he has ever really edited outside of the history of Jesus topic. His only apparent substantial editing in history was in regards to the Nazareth/Nazarene articles, which was apparently the topic of his published work. A topic ban from early Christianity would deal with all those problems, or, alternately, I suppose if we think of him as being basically an SPA on the topic of Jesus, a site ban might not be unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Declaring their commitment to edit war to push their version of the WP:TRUTH is grounds for a 0RR restriction or a topic ban in my book. Blackmane (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In my defense, I'd like to say that (1) I wasn't the first to revert (that honor goes to Mmeijeri) and so don't think I started the "edit war"; (2) I was by no means the only one to revert. The list is as follows (with descending number of reverts): Renejs -- 8, Bill the Cat 7 -- 5, Mmeijeri -- 2, Jeppiz -- 2, Gekritzl -- 2, T. M. Drew -- 1; (3) I've been a very active explainer of my reasons on the Talk page, very solicitous to listen to others and follow logic in this discussion, not emotion. I started the RfC section to get input as to why we should keep the Grant statement at the root of this whole bruhaha--I've simply acted according to logic: there IS no reason to keep the Grant quote because nobody's offered a reason, while very good reasons have been offered to the contrary! (4) I've been a big provider of new information, gathering, compiling, and uploading the reference section "Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT" (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT); (5) I've tried to be cordial despite in-my-face insults like "Peddle your fantasies somewhere else", and Bill the Cat 7's claim of "consensus" without Gektrizl or myself included; (6) if you read the short explanations in the revert history, you'll see that I'm not focused on gaming the system but on the facts, using the words "provably false", "obviously false", etc. In fact, I think Gekritzl and myself are the only editors who have been 'content' oriented in this whole edit war, while all the other editors seem 'behavior' oriented and have forgotten that it should be about the facts. Here's the revert history with the explanations on the history page:

- Mmeijeri 12:14, 30 December 2014‎ (Undid revision 640174799 by Renejs (That's arguing with the source, we'd need a reliable source who says it's no longer tenable)

- Renejs 21:00, 30 December 2014 (This is fact, not argument (as the preceding section of this article makes clear). Harpur & Brodie have appeared as Jesus mythicists since Grant wrote!)

- Jeppiz 22:51, 30 December 2014‎ (No need to repeat what has already been said. The text makes it clear Grant said this in 1977, and those two authors have already been mentioned.)

- Renejs 00:07, 31 December 2014 (The problem is precisely that what Grant said is now incorrect. The whole paragraph on Grant should probably be deleted.)

- T. M. Drew 03:22, 31 December 2014‎ (Grant's assessment is correct, and this sentence is not needed.)

- Renejs 20:12, 31 December 2014‎ (The facts prove otherwise.)

- Bill the Cat 7 18:42, 1 January 2015‎ (This is getting tiresome. CMT is FRINGE.)

- Renejs 17:31, 2 January 2015 (Deletion of provably false statement.)

- Bill the Cat 7 17:48, 2 January 2015 (It is provable. Take it to the talk page. If you want references, let me know.‎)

- Renejs 18:31, 2 January 2015‎ (I'm got references supporting the CMT, too, and they'll be on the Talk page soon.)

- Bill the Cat 7 19:18, 2 January 2015‎ (Yes, it's fringe. Take it to the talk page and see a whole host of quotes stating that it's fringe.)

- Renejs 21:20, 2 January 2015 (Mmerjeri already asked you to please obtain a consensus first as per WP:BRD.)

- Bill the Cat 7 21:55, 2 January 2015‎ (I did. We do.)

- Gekritzl 22:08, 2 January 2015 (Not a fringe theory.)

- Jeppiz 22:21, 2 January 2015 (A large number of sources have been given for the cat, stop the POV-pushing.)

- Gekritzl 22:49, 2 January 2015 (A large number of sources are given supporting Jesus Myth theory, stop POV.)

- Mmeijeri 19:46, 5 January 2015‎ (This is edit-warring, you do not have a consensus for this change.)

- Renejs 20:10, 5 January 2015‎ (Obviously false statement is deleted (see Talk). Stop being obstructive and edit warring.)

- Bill the Cat 7 02:18, 6 January 2015‎ (Peddle your fantasies somewhere else.)

- Renejs 05:03, 6 January 2015‎ (Grant's "no serious scholar" statement is obviously obsolete, as everyone knows.)Renejs (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Grant's statement is actually true, if you read the entire quote...

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200

Therefore, it is not obsolete. And it is certainly fringe, as practically all scholars say (click on the Show link to see the list). Rather than fixing the quote as it appears in the current article, he instead is trying to promote the CMT while misrepresenting what virtually all scholars have concluded. So, I think a topic ban is appropriate. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

One more note, because I don't wish to tire administrator's with this issue. . . You're moving the goalposts, Bill, and are now engaging in a bit of slight-of-hand. You know very well that those important additional words ("or at any rate very few") is not in the CMT article. So, all the reverts never go there. That's not what this is about. This is about the wiki article and what IT says (which is wrong today), not what Grant may or may not have said (misquoted or otherwise). The "status quo" wiki version everybody wants to reinstate (except me and Gekritzl) is:

According to Grant, "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory". He adds that 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' and says that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".

Not even the date 1977 is given in the above (that's found in the reference tag), so it reads as if the above were still current today, almost 40 years later. The nuts and bolts of this revealing issue are straightforward. According to the wiki version, Michael Grant (one of the most prominent classicists of his generation) asserted that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (In fact, the quote ultimately wasn't by Grant himself--he was actually citing somebody else, as his footnote reveals.) Such an assertion has long been obsolete. Not one, not two, but at least three (and arguably more) "serious scholars" have now come forward and denied the historicity of Jesus. I duly brought up their names--Robert M. Price, Thomas Brodie, and Richard Carrier--all "Jesus mythicists" with Ph.D's in a relevant field. At this information, it appears that certain editors simply went ballistic. I provided a lengthy reference section of "Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT" (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT) in order to show that, indeed, there are numerous scholars who support this view today. I also started an RfC section (on the CMT talk page) inviting editors to give any reason at all why Grant's assertion--as stated on the wiki page!--might still be true. Nobody did. That RfC section is still there, by the way.

The whole point, for me, is the admission that today we have multiple "serious scholars" who deny the historicity of Jesus. That is indisputable, and the CMT page needs to reflect that, and not continue saying "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." In short, we can not revert to status quo! That's why I insist on deleting that assertion--it's false! We're not talking here about a carefully worded retrospective sense, e.g., "Though in 1977 Robert Grant stated. . . today a number of scholars endorse the CMT." That's something else, which no one has yet proposed. Everybody, instead, is insisted on retaining Grant's false wording (without any additional words). That's the problem.

This is (or should be) a simple issue. I'm maintaining that a single critical assertion in the CMT article is no longer true, and I can easily prove my point--and have done so repeatedly on the Talk page. Astonishingly, however, other editors have ignored verifiability and made this an issue of revert warring and COI.

I'm certainly not the most important element here, and have other things to do than edit Misplaced Pages. But I think Misplaced Pages is on the line in a small way, and in a sense so is its legacy. I can imagine--maybe a century from now--people saying, "Oh yeah. . . Misplaced Pages. . . Wasn't that the early digital encylopedia which couldn't handle controversy? Instead of keeping to its stated philosophy of verification, it caved to internal pressures--mostly of a conservative nature. The Jesus issue is a case in point. As late as 2015 Misplaced Pages still insisted there wasn't a single serious scholar who disputed the historicity of Jesus. Of course, there were quite a few such scholars by then--and had been since the turn of the millennium, if not before. . ." Renejs (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Quite a few" doesn't really mean anything. What's the percentage? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether Grant's claim is true (or even properly cited) doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter whether the quote should stay or go, that can be decided by the normal consensus process, including things like adding the "dubious - discuss" tag that cannot be removed without a consensus, and of course the various conflict resolution procedures. The point is that edit-warring is against the rules. Renejs has no special privileges that allow him to operate outside the rules that apply to everybody else. He cannot be allowed to impose his will unilaterally. He should self-revert, add a dubious tag and appeal to some conflict resolution board. If he refuses to abide by the rules, I think he should be blocked for 30 days to show him you cannot get away with blatant violations of the rules. That also gives the rest of the editors an opportunity to work out a solution. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of a "dubious-discuss" tag. You know, I'm pretty inexperienced at Misplaced Pages. . . And I don't wish to claim "special privileges." The fact that these accusations are being leveled against me indicates that I'm not getting a fair shake. . . After all, don't you remember that it was I who started the RfC precisely to get 'input' on the Grant statement? That doesn't sound like someone who wants to "impose will unilaterally." But you don't like the facts I'm bringing, so you want to ban me. I understand this perfectly.Renejs (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not only do I not want to ban you, I'm bending over backwards to prevent that from happening. If you agree you aren't very familiar with Misplaced Pages policy, you shouldn't go around lecturing people about it and ignoring the many complaints about your policy violations by others who are familiar with it. You should now self-revert, declare your intention to abide by the rules, and be very hesitant to assume others are wrong if they say you are violating the rules. That may not be enough to prevent a block or even a ban, but it's your best shot. You are free to add a "dubious - discuss tag", or one of several NPOV tags. None of these can be removed without a consensus. If you don't know how to use them, you should spend some time googling and using the Misplaced Pages search function. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Listen to Martijn here, OK? If you aren't familiar with policies and guidelines, then you certainly shouldn't be trying to impose your admittedly flawed understanding of them, or adding templates you don't apparently completely understand the usage of. Also, honestly, if you want to reduce the chances of some sort of sanction being imposed, you might really want to read WP:ADOPT and have a good chance of getting some help there. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Itemizing the various proposals made of late to deal with this situation below. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea.Jeppiz (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of Renejs

• Proposed and supported by me and Blackmane above. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support The user has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that he is on Misplaced Pages with the sole purpose to push his own POV, he has shown time and time again that he will edit war to do this, and he has vowed to continue the edit warring. I think that's enough, even without the rather blatant COI.Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support If he/she is here to build an encyclopedia, then he/she can edit other topics. If he/she is not, then he/she will go away, or breach the topic ban. If he/she learns to edit collaboratively, then in time the topic ban could be removed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Edits by Renejs have been in good faith with supporting citations. GMarxx (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see enough in the diffs provided to support a topic ban at this point. Renejs appears more reasonable than some of the interpretations of his diffs suggest. I don't know much about this area, but in the diffs provided above, some of the content he wants to include appears more neutrally written than the current text. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The complaint isn't about his views, it's about his edit-warring and other policy violations. He is not trying to win over people to his point of view, he is trying to force his views on the article and refusing to accept the status quo text until a new consensus has emerged. Edit-warring isn't an acceptable way to deal with a content dispute. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you are falsely accusing, Mmeijeri. I am not trying to "force views on the article and refusing to accept the status quo text until a new consensus has emerged." There IS consensus on the Grant status quo version--it is false! Do you want a singing telegram informing you about this? EVERYONE has *already* agreed (even you, I'm sure). No one is contesting that there is at least one "serious scholar" today who espouses the CMT. No one challenges that Thomas L. Brodie, Robert M. Price, or Richard Carrier (at least one of these) is a "serious scholar." As a formality, I opened the RfC on the talk page precisely for this point (which is pretty obvious, anyway), merely for 'official' confirmation. In sum, then, there is no dispute regarding content here. Now, once Grant's statement is seen to be wrong today, then there is absolutely no reason for keeping this very serious (and easily proven) falsehood in the article. It needs to go immediately. (Once again, I caution that the Grant quote is not a historical statement 'from 1977,' nor does the status quo version have the words "or at least very few.")

I think that this whole discussion and arbitration was wrong-headed from the start and that there never was cause for arbitration, which has IMO been trumped up. Jeppiz and Mmeijeri keep insisting it's not about content but about behavior. However, it is about *content determining behavior* (at least, my behavior). It is against my principles to revert to a statement which EVERYONE (including myself) has already determined to be false. I consider Mmeijeri's insistence on such a revert grotesque. If Misplaced Pages insists on retaining statements which have already been *proven* false, then I would want nothing to do with the encyclopedia anyway and a ban would be welcome to me. BTW, I can say that this Grant statement is a very rare case. I doubt I would (or could) be so insistent on any other statement. So, let's get beyond this and put aside a statement which everyone agrees is false.

I'm afraid Mmeijeri's edits show rigidity and great difficulty "hearing" the other side. . . Once again, there has *already been consensus* that the status quo Grant statement is false (the RfC section simply confirmed the obvious). There is no voiced disagreement on this point. . . Thus, his insistence upon reverting to an obviously false statement is wrong-headed and could be interpreted as POV pushing--for it is not fact-based. Similarly for Jeppiz, John Carter, Bill the Cat 7, T. M. Drew, and the editors who refuse to part with a (cherished) statement by a well-known scholar from 1977--a statement that today is obviously invalid. Is such insistance not POV pushing?

Mmeijeri seems philosophically opposed (and strongly so) to a change made in an article before the discussion phase has ended. I think this is theoretically correct. But what he refuses to grasp is that *in this case* there is no discussion--the status quo statement has already been determined false by EVERYBODY! No one (not even Mmeijeri) contests this. Thus, BRD is not in force. That's already past. Now it's time to reject the statement (or update it by consensus!) and move on.Renejs (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There may be a consensus that the statement as currently quoted is false, but not that it needs to be removed.

Say no more. . . This is the problem--right here! You've got two parts to that sentence, Mmeijeri, and they don't go together: (1) There may be a consensus that the statement as currently quoted is false; and (2) but not that it needs to be removed. I say this: For heaven's sake, if there's "a consensus that the statement as currently quoted is false," then it needs to go! That's my point. You don't need TWO consensuses, one for the determination of falsehood, and another for the deletion. Someone else could come along and object that there needs to be a 3rd consensus, etc. etc. All this is unnecessary and nowhere in the Wiki policy, AFAIK. Somebody does, however, need to take action on the fact that a seminal assertion is false. That action is important. After all, what benefit is it if people work to determine if statements are true or false, and then but everybody dithers and no one takes action?

You don't need a second or a third consensus, you need only one, but it's a consensus on the concrete change you intend to make. You can't just take a consensus on a related point and couple it with an argument that demonstrates to your own satisfaction that your proposed change is justified. You can try to make a Bold edit to that effect, but if someone reverts it, you can't revert that revert or otherwise reinsert your change without obtaining a consensus on the actual change, which might include an appeal to a conflict resolution board to obtain a consensus. It's a very simple system: you need a consensus for every specific change you make. You don't have to wait for it, you are encouraged to be bold, but once reverted you have to obtain a consensus first. As for the "dubious - discuss" tag, see Template:Dubious. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

By your own summary of the reverts there are at least four people who oppose the change, and you're the only one advocating it. The truth or falsehood of Grant's claim is irrelevant. We quote people saying false things all the time, as inevitably we must when we neutrally report on a debate where various sources disagree. Two sides that contradict each other cannot both be right, and yet we must neutrally report both. Also, even if there now was a consensus the line should be removed, that does not justify your earlier edit-warring. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me make this even clearer: you refuse to revert a change that four or five people oppose and only you support. Clearly, you do not have a consensus for your change, and therefore the status quo version should remain. Nevertheless you refuse to revert. That's edit-warring, even if you are right. The details of the case don't matter at all, this is a purely procedural issue. If you think five editors are ganging up on you to push a point of view, then you can add an NPOV tag, a "dubious - discuss" tag and appeal to one of our conflict resolution boards. Yet you refuse to do that, and insist on having things your way. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• CommentI just looked though the article in question and I think that Renejs has some concerns, which don't justify bad behavior but may mitigate it to some extent. First, the criticism section does read as though people who put forward Christ myth theories are not serious scholars, which doesn't match the list of people and theories discussed in the article. Second, many of the sections with different theories already contain criticisms, so the article does, at least superficially, come across as non-neutral. I think it would be good for the article for all of you to give it another go with Renejs. If Renejs would agree to exercise patients and follow policy, then this thread should be closed. If that doesn't work, then a topic ban or more might be the way to go. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to work with others and exercise patience. But to do so we have to work together and listen to each other, not just make rules for others.Renejs (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your comment. First you say some concerns don't justify bad behavior but then you argue that in fact it does. I don't think this is the place to discuss the content, suffice to say that it's an article on a fringe theory and the articles mixes both serious scholars and conspiracy theorists, so it's true it could and should be approved. But I know of no Misplaced Pages policy that allow heavy edit warring because one is convinced one is right. In the absence of such a policy, I'm afraid I fail to see the point of the comment above.Jeppiz (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The bottom line is that after reading through this, I think you guys ought to give it another shot to work together. Renejs, from the his comments above and below appears to want to make it work. I may very well be wrong, but my gut tells me you might just be able to make it work. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been very willing to work with Renejs the whole time, and I think the others are too. The problem is not that we disagree with him (although we do), the problem is that he insists on reinserting a change that others have repeatedly reverted and otherwise objected to. He needs to stop edit-warring and try to obtain a consensus for the change he is proposing. If necessary, he can appeal to a conflict resolution board. If you want to join in the actual content dispute, you are more than welcome to do so, but on the Talk page, not here. The complaint here is his wilfully going against the consensus on the basis of an argument that he himself finds satisfactory but others don't. We aren't asking that he should stop arguing his case, but that he should stop edit-warring. You are not suggesting that he can unilaterally force a controversial change on the article before a consensus has been reached, are you? Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is really not the place to introduce the *highly charged* and probably complex issue of whether the CMT is "fringe theory". That category tag has already been the target of edit warring (it is presently not on the article) and clearly no consensus has yet been attained there (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=639175941&oldid=639175067). Look, this very interesting article is really going to require the best in us all to attain NPOV. We all have a point of view, but I'm willing to work with you guys, if you're willing to work with me!Renejs (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, so do you agree to stop edit warring, revert your latest edit warring and to remove the sections about yourself from the article? Jeppiz (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad the admins have kept this discussion open. It's Jeppiz who was largely responsible for hauling me in front of the admins for POV ("The user has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that he is on Misplaced Pages with the sole purpose to push his own POV," above). But Jeppiz' own considerable POV is now finally coming through, as with his one-sided view of "fringe theory" just mentioned above. We all have POV! It's like a zebra's stripes. We just don't all have the same POV. But by working together, we cancel out each other's POV and produce an article which is (hopefully) NPOV and beyond the scope of any single user. That's the beauty of Misplaced Pages--when it's working. But for this to work, it's critical to keep editors of a variety of POV's on board. If a user like Jeppiz is on a crusade to eliminate people with opposing POV, then Wiki gets a weak, non-fact-based article like the current one on the CMT--outdated and skewed to the conservative side, as admin 'I am One of Many' has implied above: "First, the criticism section does read as though people who put forward Christ myth theories are not serious scholars, which doesn't match the list of people and theories discussed in the article. Second, many of the sections with different theories already contain criticisms, so the article does, at least superficially, come across as non-neutral. I think it would be good for the article for all of you to give it another go with Renejs." Speaking for myself, of course, I concur. This article needs me! We don't want crusaders chasing people away. . . I will be more specific--this article NEEDS my POV precisely to counter the POV of Jeppiz and a few others. Evidently, the article has lacked my POV for some time, because it leans to the right (as admin noted above) and is a decade or more behind the times. (We see it now: we're arguing about a Grant quote from 1977, and three-quarters of the "Further Reading" section is before 1950!)

If Wiki wants NPOV articles on Jesus (which is obviously a very important topic) it must accommodate users with a variety of POVs. This is how the system works--one balances the other. Though I don't agree with your POV, Jeppiz, I'm still willing to work with you. In fact, I welcome your participation, knowing you will cancel me out and Wiki will benefit. But are you ready to work with me? That's the question. And, if not, which one of us should go out the door? Obviously, the one who is NOT willing to collaborate, the one who insists "my way or the highway". . .

Specifically, I've already answered your edit warring charge. It takes at least two to do that, and I provided a list of edit warriors above (which includes you).

I've also answered YOUR demand that I revert my last edit. This is a reversion to a proven false statement. Why would anyone want this? Insisting on a proven false statement from 1977 demonstrates a serious inability to live with the facts today. That's more than just POV. Inability to tolerate proven facts is a serious liability for an agressive Wiki editor like Jeppiz. I would suggest, that if Jeppiz cannot accept the facts that 'fringe theory' is still unresolved and that the Grant statement is categorically false, then HIS role and behavior pattern needs to be examined. (Incidentally, I have no such opinion regarding Mmeijeri, who seems to have the gift of pulling to the center from all sides. I just think he has a hangup on protocol.)

As for the section on me in the article, if users think it should be it removed, then remove it! I will stay entirely away from that discussion, per COI. That doesn't interest me at all.Renejs (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason for him to remove the sections about himself, in fact I think he should steer clear of them. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I should clarify my comment re the topic ban. It is not to remove Renejs completely from the article indefinitely. I would only support a fixed length topic ban with the intention that Renejs go edit something that isn't as close to his interest and learn the ropes. This is true of most topic bans. Stepping away for a period to gain experience does work wonders as long as the Tbanned editor recognises the opportunity. Blackmane (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support I have seen quite a bit of edit warring on the Christ Myth Theory page and a couple of others. This person is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to harass and edit war.--TMD Talk Page. 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per TMDrew. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support as per my above comments on the matter. The editor does not seem that they wish to change their opinion on the subject. Tutelary (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Too drastic a measure to try first. I think Renejes persists in his behaviour because he is getting away with it: his edit has been on the page for over a week, even though at least four editors object to it. Giving him a final warning and blocking him for thirty days if he doesn't react could change all that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• previously involved support This is a perpetual issue on this article, and we need to start being severe with those who are disrupting the process of building real consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since he doesn't edit anything else, this would be equivalent to a siteban for him. Not (yet) warranted in this case. Bacchiad (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This comes across as a kneecapping in response to a routine content disagreement. BlueSalix (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed 30 day block of Renejs

• Which Martin Meijering proposed above. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

My actual proposal is to give him one final chance to do the right thing. This probably involves having an administrator issue a final warning. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Way too much cyber ink has been expended on what is a fairly run of the mill case of edit warring and refusing to accept consensus. Let's start here and if they don't learn their lesson we can always come back to the more serious sanctions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Per above. Bacchiad (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems like a routine content disagreement to me. If it really isn't, administrative caution or censure should precede any block, particularly a 30 day one. BlueSalix (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That is what I'm proposing. Over the past few days the disruptive behaviour has been dialed down, perhaps in reaction to statements made here. If so, I'm happy to see that, but the text that was edit-warred into the article over the objections of four or five other editors still remains in the article and that still needs to be addressed. Ideally Renejs would take it out himself (and in that case we don't even need an explicit administrative caution), but if he doesn't someone else needs to do it and then he does need to be warned that further edit-warring will not be tolerated. I don't know if 30 days is the appropriate length of a block in case of further violations, and maybe it doesn't need to be spelled out in the warning.

Also, note that while the content disagreement may be fairly routine, the user conduct has not been. The complaint here is about highly disruptive user conduct, and the details and nature of the content disagreement are not relevant to this complaint, though they are obviously relevant to an eventual resolution of the disagreement itself. If you read his statements in this ANI thread, you'll see he has blatantly denied existing Misplaced Pages policies! Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Meijering, I think you're confused. You're also getting a little wild. You write that "the text that was edit-warred into the article over the objections of four or five other editors still remains in the article and that still needs to be addressed." But I've NEVER put any content into the CMT article. Check my contributions. FYI, my participation in the group edit-war got an obviously false statement by Grant OUT of the CMT article. I didn't put anything in. My last revert was on Jan 6 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=641192563&oldid=641176576. Also, since then I haven't touched the article until today when I updated a reference tag.

Admins: this is transparent harassment from Meijering. I'm surprised he's been able to continue doing it for so long. I think it's time to institute formal harassment proceedings against him (because he's really persistent) and I'm asking you directly how I might go about doing that. You can contact me on my user page or how you think appropriate. Misplaced Pages:Harassment defines it as "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." This is exactly what's been happening to me, and there's a growing record of it right here on this page. There are consequences, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Harassment#Blocking_for_harassment. Meijering has now graduated to inventing dirt to throw at me, and he's trying to hoodwink you admins. I think that's getting pretty serious.

As for conduct, I find the conduct of Meijering absolutely inexcusable.

Renejs (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion you have edit-warred two changes into the article: the removal of Grant's statement that no serious scholar has put forward the CMT and you've added a rebuttal, both of which changes survive in the latest version, in altered form. Both changes have been repeatedly reverted, and reinserted by you.

You don't seem to know the difference between removing something and putting it in. And what "rebuttal" did I put in? Are you inventing again? (Time for chicken soup. . .)

If you read my posts on this thread, you'll see that contrary to your assertion I've not at all been concerned with trying to get you blocked, but simply with getting these edit-warred changes reverted, at least until there is a consensus for a new version. In fact, I have been bending over backwards to offer you a way out.

I prefer you to stop bending over backwards and start making sense.

Since you claim none of your edit-warred changes survive in the latest form of the article, I'll now feel free to remove them until there is a consensus that supports them.

You don't seem to have yet figured out what my "edit-warred changes" were. They were the removal of one obviously false sentence from Grant: "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." That's it. Nothing else.

If you revert them again (as opposed to arguing for them on the Talk page), that will be (yet another) crystal clear case of edit-warring, which should have consequences.

Dunno what you're talking about. The only thing I'll definitely revert out is the Grant statement if you're foolish enough to put what everyone considers an OBVIOUS FALSEHOOD back in.

If you don't, then this thread will serve as a record of the complaints about your behaviour and your responses to them in case the disruptive behaviour resumes.

I'm happy to let this page stand as a witness to my behavior. You're the one being disruptive. This would have never happened had you not taken it to the admins and continued to prolong this charade for two weeks.

I've stated several times now, if you don't resume edit-warring and your edit-warred changes are removed, I see no reason for sanctions at this time.

Before anyone cares what you think, Meijering, first you have to demonstrate that you're rational.Renejs (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

How the others who support sanctions will react to this is for them to decide. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Meijering has just reverted to the old Grant statement which 100% consensus considers false (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=643228427&oldid=643128901). This needs to be noted.Renejs (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a consensus that the statement is false in its abbreviated form, but not in its full form.

Precisely. And this matter is emphatically over the abbreviated form--not the "full form" (which has never appeared in the CMT article). There's a big difference between the two. Please don't muddy the waters by confusing them. If you want the "full form" (with the words "or at least very few") then you'll have to propose that on the talk page--and get consensus. We already have consensus that the short form is false and needs to go.

A more proper response might be to provide the full quote. But more importantly, there is no consensus that it needs to be removed. An attributed quote by a reliable source is still a notable view, even if it is false, and it is only reported as such, a view, and not in Misplaced Pages voice.

WRONG. But we all thank you for (tacitly) admitting that Grant's assertion is false. After two weeks, this is progress. . . Now you will need to convince everyone that Misplaced Pages should keep a false assertion which is not labeled clearly as such IN THE ARTICLE--for example: "According to Grant (writing in 1977), "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory". He adds that 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'--but this view is now false, for several "serious scholars" today indeed endorse the Christ myth theory. Grant further writes. . ." Of course, this is not what you're proposing, which is why your arguments for defending the "status quo" wording have no merit. I think you fundamentally misunderstand Misplaced Pages if you think that it will tolerate a false view 'in the guise of' a correct view, regardless of your specious recourse to "Misplaced Pages voice" (!). All editors have every right--indeed the duty--to revert your insertion of false material out of the article.

Also, there is implied consensus for removal of a statement which is acknowledged by all to be false. I've noted this before but you continually fail to hear: no one needs (or should wait for) a 'second consensus' to remove false material. This is contrary to wikipedia policy. Once material is acknowledged false, it needs to go. Your bringing in arguments about "notable view," "interesting" (you mentioned this on the talk page), etc. are just more casuistry ("the use of clever but unsound reasoning").

I reverted the text to the WP:STATUSQUO version, thereby reversing the changes that were edit-warred into the article over the objections of four or five editors. Reverting these edit-warred changes is not itself edit-warring. If a new consensus develops that the quote should be removed, either because it is false or for other reasons, then that's fine with me. Right now there is no such consensus and reverting to the status quo is entirely appropriate. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're careful to cover your butt and make sure nobody might think you're breaking any rules. . . And all the while you do something much worse: you break the spirit of Misplaced Pages by continually refusing to admit fact-based information into the article.Renejs (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you increasingly sensing, Meijering, that only you are insisting upon "a new consensus"? You need to self-revert and not start a new edit war by having inserted obviously false material of a very inflammatory nature into the CMT article.Renejs (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed site ban of Renejs

• Suggested by me above, but not necessarily supported by me, who would prefer a topic ban if anything, based on his edit history showing him to be basically an SPA on the broad topic of the existence of Jesus.John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per John Carter.--TMD Talk Page. 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per John Carter. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no reason for a site ban unless and until he misbehaves on other topics as well, which seems unlikely. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Edits by Renejs have been in good faith with supporting citations. GMarxx (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, how is repeatedly inserting a change that no one else supports and several others object to acting in good faith? I agree we should not be contemplating a site ban now, but I don't understand how people can say that without also pointing out there do need to be sanctions, because this blatant edit-warring is unacceptable. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Over-reaction, as noted below. The real remedy should be general sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This "wikihounding" of myself by user Martijn Meijering (Mmeijeri) has gone on long enough. I appeal to the administrators, whoever you are, to adhere to Misplaced Pages policy and not to invented "protocols" by Meijering or anyone else, especially when they don't understand Wiki policy themselves (see further). Meijering has now emerged as the main engineer of sanctions against me, continually forcing this issue. He says it's not about content (the Grant citation in the CMT article)--but it is--and he's getting weirder and weirder, writing things like "Whether Grant's statement is true is utterly irrelevant"(Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?) Such an attitude is astonishing when Misplaced Pages is about verifiability and getting statements as correct as possible. The critical 1977 Grant citation in the CMT article ("no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus") is causing this brouhaha, though it has already been verified FALSE by everybody today!

I have been hauled in front of arbitration for removing the above proven false statement by Grant. This is, however, entirely correct Wiki policy, especially when there is consensus--and there has been consensus (contrary to Meijering's obstinate insistence on the contrary)--because NOBODY thinks the Grant statement is any longer true (or that it has been for quite some time)! In Misplaced Pages one is supposed to remove clearly false material. When I first removed this assertion, I explained why--first in the brief edits, and then on the talk page. Because of resistance, I finally instituted an RfC section on the CMT talk page to confirm the (obvious) incorrectness of Grant's statement today. But Meijering, Jeppiz, and others still resisted, and they even hauled me in front of the admins for this. Meijering wants to go through some kind of arcane process and "try to obtain a consensus for the change he is proposing"--when, of course, we already have complete consensus. He writes: "If necessary, he can appeal to a conflict resolution board"--but these are all his own false protocol requirements.

In fact, a statement doesn't even have to be provably false to be removed--just unsourced: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability). What is Meijering going on and on about here! I am being wikihounded, plain and simple. . .

Meijering writes that I cannot "unilaterally force a controversial change on the article before a consensus has been reached"--but, once again, no one doubts that a consensus HAS been reached. This is what he refuses to see. We're talking about removing information from an article which is simply and easily proven false. (At least three PhD's in the field now ascribe to the CMT, and at least one has since the 1970's--the New Testament scholar Fr. Thomas L. Brodie).

Here is Meijeri's convoluted solution (?) to this matter, which he astonishingly considers "very simple": "You don't need a second or a third consensus, you need only one, but it's a consensus on the concrete change you intend to make. You can't just take a consensus on a related point and couple it with an argument that demonstrates to your own satisfaction that your proposed change is justified. You can try to make a Bold edit to that effect, but if someone reverts it, you can't revert that revert or otherwise reinsert your change without obtaining a consensus on the actual change, which might include an appeal to a conflict resolution board to obtain a consensus. It's a very simple system: you need a consensus for every specific change you make. You don't have to wait for it, you are encouraged to be bold, but once reverted you have to obtain a consensus first." Sounds pretty damn complex to me, especially when we're dealing with a statement by Grant which the consensus has already determined to be untenable.

Meijering makes such a big deal about Misplaced Pages policy when he himself doesn't understand it, as in his misinterpreting RfC policy (Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?--scroll to bottom). He continues to imperiously foist his OWN requirements for FALSE 'protocol' on me. The only reason I can see for this is presumably to attain compliance of behavior or even a topic ban. This is tantamount to censorship of the users which, of course, amounts to censorship of Misplaced Pages (POV).

Finally, Meijering and Jeppiz come out with one ridiculous assertion after another. Here are a few:

--Meijering: "The details of the case don't matter at all, this is a purely procedural issue."

-- Meijering: "Whether Grant's statement is true is utterly irrelevant" (Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?)

--Meijering: "Whether Grant's claim is true (or even properly cited) doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter whether the quote should stay or go. . ."

--Jeppiz: "this report has absolutely nothing to do with which version is right or wrong."

I rest my case and probably deserve a Barnstar. I'm being wikihounded and appeal to the admins to deliver a severe warning (at the very least) against Meijering and Jeppiz concerning their aggressive and unjustifiable behavior. It would be a most serious matter if any of the admins allowed themselves to be swayed by a wikihound like Meijering, one who is an active, aggressive, and controlling editor who is apparently closely patrolling the Jesus pages on Misplaced Pages.Renejs (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Four or five editors have reverted Renejs's edit, only he has supported it, yet he keeps reinserting it and it is still on the page. It's crystal clear that there is no consensus for his change. Also, I'm calling for the lightest possible sanction: a final warning telling him to revert his controversial change until there is a consensus for that specific change, as opposed to some related issue he thinks is decisive. If he refuses, I'm calling for a thirty day block.

I'm starting to wonder whether it was a mistake to bring this to the general section as opposed to the edit-warring / 3RR subsection. There is a clear violation of 3RR, which I thought was intended as a bright line. Can some administrator step in and take action? Is there anything we still need to wait for? A controversial change has been edit-warred into the article by a single SPA with a COI, over the objections of four or five other editors, and it has remained there for at least a week or so. I'm not sure why people are voting on the various proposed sanctions, especially the involved editors (myself included), since I thought this wasn't a vote. Are we waiting for some kind of quorum of administrators to weigh in? Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:ROPE might be applicable here. The longer he refuses to revert himself, the stronger the case against him gets. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add that Meijering (user Mmeijeri) has been accused of bullying in the past:

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Me.2C_.22constantly_mentioning_other_editors_by_name.22. Renejs (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI: The user making that accusation (Homni) is a sock puppet of PennySeven and has been blocked indefinitely. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You were still bullying.

And I see that you yourself have refused to self-revert, heatedly saying "don't lecture me! . . . I don't have to undo my revert". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Fractional_Reserve_Banking You're evidently a hypocrite too.

There as here I was insisting on a consensus for a controversial change. So, no, I did not have to self-revert. The reason you do have to self-revert in this case is because in your case the sequence was: bold edit by Renejs (fine), reverted by someone else (fine), reinserted by Renejs (edit-warring, several times in fact). You are not supposed to reinsert a bold change that has been reverted by someone else before obtaining a consensus. You are welcome to make a Bold change, and everybody else is welcome to revert it if they don't like it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And what about your history of obstinately refusing to "get the point"? (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22) See: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Second_WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT_note . Here the user even said "we are all going of die of old age on this." See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Comment_from_PirateButtercup

And I see you've resisted changes to the Grant quote before: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Second_WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT_note Renejs (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Conceding some commonsense exceptions, we don't usually start with the nuclear option when dealing with a problem editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• oppose no evidence of problem editing outside the area. They are currently a WP:SPA. give them some WP:ROPE. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't see enough to take a drastic step. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• SNOW Oppose Site bans are reserved for the most tenacious of problem editors, generally only after they have gone prolonged periods of time violating behavioural guidelines with no sign they will ever internalize our policies and procedures. Renejs certainly does have a long way to go with regard to understanding how our content decisions are made on this project and contributing appropriately, and some kind of sanction (if only a temporary block for the next revert violation) may very be in order, but he hasn't begun to approach the level of disruption that has traditionally been reserved for site bans. Indeed, those kinds of decisions are rarely considered to be in the purview of ANI and I doubt any admin is going to act to try to impose such a massive punishment based on the behaviours being discussed here. Snow talk 16:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This seems like a routine content disagreement to me. If it really isn't, administrative caution or censure should precede any block or site ban, except in some dire emergency of which this clearly isn't. BlueSalix (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not enough disruption to warrant this. In fact, I don't see any evidence of this user editing disruptively anywhere else. We can probably do a temporary page ban or temporary block, though. Epic Genius (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request

User:Renejs, can I ask you to clarify some things for me? I've just read through the above but haven't gone through the article's talk page recently.

• Above, the "no serious scholar" comment appears to be attributed to Michael Grant and Robert M Grant. Is one of those a typo or have I misread?

It's Michael Grant. The edition I possess is Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Charles Scribner's Sons (New York, 1977). The paragraph in question is on p. 200. It reads (note the two inner quotations!): To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.' In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicy of Jesus'--or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.Renejs (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Have I got this right: we were quoting Grant's 1977 "no serious scholar" statement unmodified, despite Grant having in 1995 modified his comment with "or at any rate very few"? (It's bedtime here.)

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The important words "or at least very few" are in the original quote, but have never been included on the CMT page (to my knowledge)--a very tendentious omission. Also, the CMT version has (equally tendentiously) omitted any mention that the citation is from a 1977 publication, which leads the reader to suppose that it is a recent quote from a reputable scholar alive today and not from about 40 years ago.

This is probably not the place to go into the astonishing intricacies of the Grant citation. He is actually citing two other writers (from 1957 and 1968, according to his footnote), one of which was not a scholar at all but apparently a novelist Roderic Dunkerley. Thanks, Anthony, for your interest and support. Yes, I do feel a tad lonely in this wiki-world and that I'm being "railroaded" out, basically because my view is not liked and I'm able to support it with verifiable facts.Renejs (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You're kidding me. Did anyone defend the obviously false Misplaced Pages text while knowing about the omitted modifying language? If so, could you please list them? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Meijering if by far the most aggressive user reverting to the "short" Grant statement which he seems to sanctify by calling "status quo." In fact, he continues to revert to it as we write, and has done so several times in the last four days (latest here ). It's been explained to him numerous times that this version of the Grant statement is obviously false, and that it has been so for many years. It's also been explained to him (repeatedly) that there's total consensus that it's false (I put in an RfC section on the talk page just to confirm this). But none of this has seemed to matter.

It has not been 'explained to me' that this is the case, I agree and have done so from the beginning. It has been explained to you several times that 1) this doesn't matter as it's an attributed statement and 2) this ANI complaint is about your disruptive behaviour, not about your disagreement with the current version. The quote still needs to be accurate of course, and I've drawn attention to the fact that part of the quote was missing and proposed adding it back. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Meijering appears to strongly resist any substantive changes to the article, unless they are made according to his proprietary (and completely incomprehensible to me) 'wiki' protocols and at a glacial pace--if ever. I am astonished at his ability to violate the spirit of this encyclopedia which, above all, professes to value up to date and verifiably correct content.

This is not some arcane and proprietary protocol, it is standard Misplaced Pages procedure. Changes can only be added by consensus, not by edit-warring. Observe that I have proposed a number of changes for which there is no consensus and that I haven't tried to edit-war them into the article. Some of the other editors have also objected to parts of the page for literally years and haven't been able to get a consensus for their changes either, and you don't see them engaging in edit-warring. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Other users who have reverted to the false Grant statement are (in decreasing order of reverts) Bill the Cat 7, Jeppiz, and T. M. Drew, all with considerable support from John Carter who writes (above): "I think WP:ROPE might be applicable here. The longer refuses to revert himself, the stronger the case against him gets. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)" Thus Carter also wishes me to revert to the "short" form of Grant's statement and has furthermore tried to maneuver me into a severe penalty of a topic ban if I don't.Renejs (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No one objected to correcting the text, and as far as I know no one objected to adding an indication of when the quote was written. I've proposed both modifications myself. I was aware that the full quote said "or at any rate very few", but hadn't noticed it was missing in the CMT article. I was not aware that Grant was citing earlier scholars until someone pointed it out on the Talk page. Earlier versions of the quote may have had the full text, I'm not sure. The Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus articles have or at one time had the full quote. But none of this matters, because a content dispute is supposed to be solved on the Talk page or through appeal to a dispute resolution board, not through edit warring and policy violations. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And I agreed with the proposals when made on the talk page, and even proposed that the quote start with the date of inclusion to indicate that it is about 40 years outdated. And, unfortunately, I didn't notice the lack of the full quote reproduction either. And I also note that Renejs seems to be once again profoundly over-dramahtizing himself and his actions. Had he shown an ability to act in a collegial manner, and not engage in regular personal aspersions on others, particularly Martijn (which is remarkable, because so far as I can tell Martijn is the only editor there who really personal supports/agrees with Renejs about the likely nonexistence of Jesus). His conduct, and the rather arrogant and obnoxious nature of it, is the reason this discussion was started and sanctions proposed. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Time to close this thread. This has pretty much boiled down to a content dispute, which now looks like it can be settled on the article talk page. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, have you actually read the complaint? This is definitely not a mere content dispute, there are serious conduct issues. We have blatant violations of policy, including a clear violation of 3RR (, , , ), repeated threats to continue edit-warring "as long as it takes", most recently in the past couple of days (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Christ_myth_theory&diff=prev&oldid=643568896), refusal to appeal to a conflict resolution board if he feels he is being railroaded, a COI as a published author on this subject, apparent plans to portray himself as the victim of Misplaced Pages shenanigans outside Misplaced Pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Renejs&diff=prev&oldid=643654470, "I'm writing articles for various mags and online blogs about Misplaced Pages "from the inside." I'll basically be chronicling my digital wiki-voyage and how the encyclopedia has managed to pretty much turn this well-meaning newbie into a disgruntled bannee in less than a month!"), constantly casting aspersions, mostly with clearly false accusations, and general incivility.

Note that I never asked for more than an administrative caution (though perhaps coupled with a warning that the next violation would lead to a 30 day block). Personally I have only been concerned with getting the edit-warred changes out of the text and to stop further edit-warring. That has now been accomplished, and the bad behaviour had been dialed down, so I no longer saw a pressing reason for sanctions. Renejs's behaviour in recent days has made me less certain of that however. In any event, even if we decide to close this case without sanctions, it should be clear that this isn't a mere content dispute. In particular, the expressed intent to write about the present episode in various magazines is a highly disturbing new development. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Concerns about tendentious editing

Please leave this open. There is a prima facie case for tendentious editing that needs looking at. I've just started looking into the history. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• 17:48, 2 January 2015 our article said

  Grant also asserted that 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'. Writing in 1977, Grant also stated that "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory", and that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".

• 19:03, 2 January 2015 an editor posts the Grant quote, in context, on the talk page:

  “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars’. In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

Note: Grant expressly states a few serious scholars have postulated the non-historicity of Jesus. Whoever added that to wikipedia was lying and deceiving our readers by cutting Grant off mid-sentence and selectively quoting him.

• 22:28, 2 January 2015 Jeppiz: "Yes, ending with Grant is not ideal, and a concluding paragraph could be good. The real problem right now, though, is the two SPAs who revert anything that doesn't suit them based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The latest edit war is a case in point. Even though we have a large number of sources for calling this fringe theory that (or even 'conspiracy theory' as some harsher historians call it), the SPAs keep edit-warring and insist oon this talk page to continue to edit-war. Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• 00:28, 3 January 2015 Mmeijeri: "That's an interesting find. I agree more context is needed, or perhaps the way we quote Grant is necessary. But apart from that, I don't think it changes the essence, since Grant appears to be citing the older views approvingly."
• 18:42, 5 January 2015 Renejs (Rene) edits the article to move the date of Grant's commentary from the middle to the front of the paragraph so it's clear all the quotes are from 1977, and mentions two serious scholars who postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.
• 19:46, 5 January 2015 Mmeijeri reverts.
• 05:58, 6 January 2015 Renejs opens an RfC, "Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?"

Note: The above isn't finished I'll get back to this as soon as I can. But can I just say for now that as a rule I judge people who deliberately add or restore false information to articles more harshly than I do experts who lose their patience with Randys. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What is your point? Rene's additions had been objected to, and he kept reinserting them. Reverting to the status quo was entirely appropriate. He needs to obtain a consensus first. I have no idea who inserted the quote without the "or at any rate any few", or who removed that part if it was there already. I do know I've drawn attention to the missing part of the quote, and advocated its insertion. I'm waiting for a consensus to do so, Renejs being one of the people who object to it.

Also pray tell who you think has deliberately added or restored false information. That's a pretty serious allegation, I hope you have some evidence for it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

:

What is your point? Rene's additions had been objected to. . .

They were my deletions--your additions.

. . . and he kept reinserting them.

Yes. And your deletions had been objected to by myself and Gekritzl, but you kept reinserting YOUR version. The version which is verifiably correct today is obviously the version which belongs in the article.

Reverting to the status quo was entirely appropriate.

No, not when the status quo is false. That's what Misplaced Pages is all about. Change needs to be in the positive, not negative direction. You've got it backwards. But we've been through this all before. And you misunderstand WP:STATUSQUO. It doesn't mean that the pre-existing version is necessarily better. It just means "the last version." One never reverts to it when it's known to be false. This should be too elementary to have to say to an experienced editor like yourself.

He needs to obtain a consensus first.

Again: no. This is your famous "second consensus" requirement, Meijering! We already have total consensus that the short Grant version is false. Therefore it must not appear in the article in that form. If you want another form, then you need to propose that on the talk page--after the incorrect statement has been removed. We don't keep provably false statements in the article, possibly for years, pending possible formulation of a 'better' versions by 'consensus.' That might never happen, and improvement would effectively be impeded by one tendentious editor like yourself who refuses to go along with 'consensus.'

I have no idea who inserted the quote without the "or at any rate any few", or who removed that part if it was there already. I do know I've drawn attention to the missing part of the quote, and advocated its insertion.

I question this.

I'm waiting for a consensus to do so, Renejs being one of the people who object to it.

Absolutely. And it's clear that you'll be waiting an awfully long time--which suits you just fine, because you're trying to make removal of false material NOW contingent on achieving questionable consensus on some other version possibly far into the future. What that means, in practical terms (and please take careful note of this), is that per your scenario the false Grant statement can stay in the article virtually forever, pending a consensus which YOU will be able to impede as long as you like. That's a very effective blocking m.o.--and I gather it's been successful for a long time.

Also pray tell who you think has deliberately added or restored false information. That's a pretty serious allegation, I hope you have some evidence for it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

YOU DID! You're the undisputed king of reverting to the false statement, Meijering. You did it again two days ago . Every time you revert to the short form of Grant, you are 'deliberately adding and restoring false information'! And, yes, that is indeed a "pretty serious allegation" which is why you need to be disciplined or at least prevented from continuing on this road. Yesterday, Bill the Cat 7 followed your example by also reverting to the false statement. So, you see, you are having a very destructive effect on the article and have obviously found an effective formula for indefinitely stonewalling its improvement.Renejs (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Right now only you stand in the way of restoring the full quote. As you know I've proposed adding that back, as well as inserting the words "in 1977". I didn't get a consensus for that change because you objected, and I won't edit-war it into the article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to help resolve the content dispute, you are more than welcome to do so, but on the article Talk page, not here. This complaint is about user conduct, including edit-warring. You are not suggesting edit-warring is appropriate behaviour in a content dispute are you? Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks as if the "at any rate" bit was removed in this diff , which looks like a good faith attempt by an anonymous IP to reduce unnecessary duplication of Grant's words. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I might believe you if there were any duplicated words. The IP moved the sentence to a different part of the section so the diff wouldn't show up their deletion of "or at any rate very few" and left a lying edit summary.

Would you please remove the comments you inserted into my comments, per WP:TPG? If you want to respond to particular points I've raised, quote me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rule that requires this, but I'll be happy to do it. If others object, I'm sure they'll chime in.

:

• 22:28, 2 January 2015 Jeppiz: "Yes, ending with Grant is not ideal, and a concluding paragraph could be good. The real problem right now, though, is the two SPAs who revert anything that doesn't suit them based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The latest edit war is a case in point. Even though we have a large number of sources for calling this fringe theory that (or even 'conspiracy theory' as some harsher historians call it), the SPAs keep edit-warring and insist oon this talk page to continue to edit-war. Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• 00:28, 3 January 2015 Mmeijeri: "That's an interesting find. I agree more context is needed, or perhaps the way we quote Grant is necessary. But apart from that, I don't think it changes the essence, since Grant appears to be citing the older views approvingly."

This was in response to discovering that Grant is citing other scholars. It had nothing to do with the "in 1977" or "or at any rate very few", both of which I support and have supported all along. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• 18:42, 5 January 2015 Renejs edits the article to move the date of Grant's commentary from the middle to the front of the paragraph so it's clear all the quotes are from 1977, and mentions two serious scholars who postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.

He reinserts material several editors had already objected to without obtaining a consensus. He could have added a "dubious-discuss" tag, tried to gain a consensus on the Talk page or have appealed to a conflict resolution board, but chose to edit-war instead. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• 19:46, 5 January 2015 Mmeijeri reverts.

A purely procedural revert, as I explained in the edit message. There was no consensus for this change (it had been reverted several times already), and it needed to be discussed first. As it happens, the substantive objection that caused the lack of consensus was not to the "in 1997", as far as I can tell no one objects to that. It was also not about mentioning the two serious scholars, whose inclusion I strongly support. The substantive objection here is that we do not debate our sources, specifically not by adding selective rebuttals. The material can be added elsewhere in the article (and does in fact appear elsewhere), but not as a selective rebuttal. Renejs is welcome to dispute these points on Talk or to appeal to a conflict resolution board, but not to impose his will unilaterally. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• 05:58, 6 January 2015 Renejs opens an RfC, "Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?"

Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, what's with the "lying"? That's a very serious accusation. Also note that the following words were in fact duplicated: "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Martijn, how do you justify this 22 January 2015 edit, restoring the falsehood that according to classical historian Michael Grant 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'; when you have known since 19:03, 2 January 2015 that it is a misleading selective quote, misrepresenting the source's actual position?

By the way, a couple of comments you've made above make me think you might benefit from reading WP:BOOMERANG. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted to the status quo version. The sequence of events was something like this: Renejs had made his bold move, I had initially reverted it, then he reinserted it, then I proposed a compromise, then others rejected and reverted that compromise, then Renejs reverted reverts by about four other people and then for a long time his version stood in the article over the objections of four or five other editors. The others gave up at that point, not wanting to edit-war themselves. Despite discussions on the Talk page Renejs refused to self-revert and otherwise follow Misplaced Pages procedures, repeatedly threatening to edit-war.

In the meantime we discovered that the "or at any rate" bit was missing and I drew attention to it. We also found out that Grant was citing other scholars, which is (somewhat) clear in the full quote as Renejs quoted it on the talk page since it uses apostrophes, but not in the way it was cited in the article. Several people advocated fixing these problems.

Then on this ANI page, Renejs insisted he was falsely accused of edit-warring changes into the article, since none of his changes remained. I then announced I would now feel free to restore the status quo text since Renejs no longer claimed to have any of his changes in it. After I reverted to the status quo, Renejs disagreed, but refrained from further edit-warring, and limited his disagreements to discussions on the Talk page. As I had announced I would, I said I no longer saw any pressing reason for sanctions, since I only wanted the edit-warring to stop.

At no stage was the conflict over Renejs wanting to restore the full quote and others somehow wanting to truncate it to mislead others into believing there are no serious scholars who support the CMT or take it seriously.

First of all, *no one at all* is arguing in favour of the truncated version or insisting it should remain. I most certainly did not want to do so, since in general I think Misplaced Pages is wrongly slanted against the CMT, which does have serious supporters. Not many, but a few, and I've long felt they have been falsely smeared and edit-warred out of articles by certain editors. I also feel Misplaced Pages is far too deferential towards biblical scholarship, despite the serious concerns about a lack of impartiality and methodological soundness coming from both inside and outside the field. Deliberately arguing for a truncated version would go entirely against this long-held conviction of mine. I really shouldn't have to reveal my personal views on the matter, but I hope it helps dispel any notion that I'm engaged in tendentious editing.

Secondly, Renejs does not want to restore the full version at all! He wants to take out the Grant statement about "no serious scholar ... or at any rate very few" altogether. In fact, I think he wants to remove the entire Grant paragraph. And his reason is that he feels Grant is wrong or biased. Get this, we have an article dedicated to a theory with only a tiny amount of scholarly support, in which many proponents are represented generously, including several minor and long dead ones, and for balance we have one rather small criticism section. In this criticism section we quote a number of critics who are generally scathing. Note that we quote them with attribution, not saying or implying they are right, we merely report their views. And now Renejs wants to take out Grant's criticism altogether because he personally thinks Grant is wrong!

Thirdly, I proposed (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Making_the_Grant_quote_more_accurate) making a few changes that I thought would be uncontroversial (making clear where Grant is citing others, adding the words "in 1977" to deal with a concern Renejs had, and restoring the "at any rate" bit). Right now the only thing that is standing in the way of fixing the truncation is Renejs's disagreement. In other words, his insistence that Grant is wrong and should therefore not be included at all is keeping the truncated version in the article! As I said, I won't edit-war changes into the article without a consensus. In the meantime I've made a BOLD move to insert an fcn tag to at least draw attention to the problem on the article page, lest a passer-by remain unaware of it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I do know all that. I am asking you to recognise and acknowledge that restoring this statement to the article - a statement that we all agree is false and misleading - was very bad. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If by that you mean I was wrong to do it, then no I don't think it was very bad. My understanding of the rules is that when there is no consensus on what should happen, you should revert to the status quo, not to your own preferred version. You can make BOLD proposals in the hope they will gain a consensus, but you shouldn't try to force them on others. There are some exceptions to this related to WP:BLP, but those are the rules as I understand them. If I'm mistaken about this, I'll be happy to better informed.

If you simply mean that it is undesirable that the truncated quote remains in the article until we have a new consensus, then I agree completely, but I'm not sure what to do about it. I've asked Renejs to clarify whether he objects to restoring the full quote as an interim solution, or whether he simply won't commit to it indefinitely. I was asking for the former and thought that was clear enough, but it never hurts to ask I suppose. If you have constructive suggestions about what I should have done instead or should do next, I'll be happy to hear them. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Martijn. Do not restore content to Misplaced Pages that you know to be false, as you did here.

Renejs was wrong to edit war but it's something we'd all (most of us, anyway) do when we're new and a group of people is systematically restoring false information to Misplaced Pages. It deserves a warning, and at most, a short block for emphasis.

Deliberately restoring false and misleading information to Misplaced Pages when there is unanimous agreement on the talk page that it is false and misleading deserves at least a ban from editing in that topic area, but realistically (if you can't acknowledge you understand how wrong it was to do that) a ban from Misplaced Pages is the only appropriate remedy in my opinion. Do you recognise that there is never any excuse for knowingly adding or restoring false and misleading information to Misplaced Pages? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am advocating those changes and have been ever since I noticed the truncation and only Renejs's objections are stopping me from carrying them out. I don't want to be accused of edit-warring. I can't very well say we need to insert my corrections because I'm right, but we can't insert Renejs's because he's wrong can I? Per WP:BRD I could have made a BOLD attempt to restore the missing bits and wait for someone to REVERT it if they disagreed, but I decided to be super careful and ask for a consensus *first*. I want these changes, but I thought and still think the rules say I can't without a consensus. If an administrator can reassure me inserting this change will not be held against me, I'll be happy to do it.

I can't believe you're suggesting sanctions against me are in order as a result of having been scrupulous about following the rules. During this whole conflict no one has ever suggested that anyone should unilaterally restore the full quote, you are the first to do so. Renejs too has never suggested I should at least restore the full quote, something I would have done gladly. In fact I proposed just that myself and it is deference to his right to object as per the rules as I understand them that kept me from acting as you are now suggesting I should have. Why don't you tell Renejs he should not oppose those changes? Note that I haven't reverted any attempts to insert the full quote, only Renejs's attempt to remove even more pieces from Grant's quote and to add a selective rebuttal. Also note that Renejs hasn't complained that people are stopping the full quote from being restored as that's not what he wants, while at the same time the others, myself included, do want this. I have been bending over backwards to offer Renejs a golden bridge out, I argued against a site ban, a topic ban and even a thirty day block without a prior warning and dropped even that after my only concern (stopping the edit-warring) was achieved through other means. I am shocked this is now being held against me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to be sure I'm not being misunderstood, I'll try to clarify what I mean. I believe what should happen now is for the full and accurate Grant quote to be restored, together with an indication that it was written in 1977. I've advocated this from the moment I learned of the truncation and I believe everybody else but Renejs wants this. I believe Renejs objects to this even as an interim measure, because he wants Grant to be removed entirely because he believes Grant is wrong, but just to be sure I've asked him to clarify. It was my understanding that I couldn't make the changes I've just outlined without a consensus, and we didn't have one at the time and still don't. Therefore I reverted to the status quo instead, as I believed then and still believe the rules specify.

Note that I'm not asking Renejs to give up on his objection to Grant, but merely to consent to the change I'm proposing now as an interim measure, and which it is my understanding Anthonyhcole says I should have applied unilaterally. If Renejs can later obtain a consensus that Grant should indeed be removed because he is wrong, then of course that should happen. Right now there is no such consensus.

If I am mistaken in my interpretation of the rules and if I could and should instead have restored first the status quo and then immediately added back the missing part of the quote because I knew it was missing then I apologise and won't be doing anything like that again. If an administrator can step in and clarify the rules I would be very grateful. In my defense I will point out that out of an abundance of caution I didn't take the second step unilaterally but first proposed it on the Talk page for others to comment on and when Renejs objected I held off. There is absolutely no bad faith involved, at the very worst I misinterpreted the rules in good faith. I think it would be very unjust if an honest attempt to be extra careful was punished. Either way I hope an administrator will soon step in and clarify the rules. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

We can on with this as long as necessary until we've smoked every bug out of the woodwork of Meijering's slippery and convoluted logic. I only sit down at this page once a day--after my more important work is done--so I can carry as long as it takes. But I will say that we've come to a nadir of irrationality in what follows. For those of you still reading, I here offer my latest feedback.

(1) Renejs had made his bold move. . .

Removing a proven false statement from 1977 is not a bold move. It's routine--or should be.

(2) . . . Renejs reverted reverts by about four other people and then for a long time his version stood in the article over the objections of four or five other editors. The others gave up at that point, not wanting to edit-war themselves. Despite discussions on the Talk page Renejs refused to self-revert and otherwise follow Misplaced Pages procedures, repeatedly threatening to edit-war.

(a) It was not 'me against everybody.' Gekritzl also reverted away from the false Grant citation. (b) As mentioned before, I of course have refused Meijering's ridiculous mandate to self-revert on the grounds of principle--I will not insert false material per another user's self-serving protocol inventions. (c) None of my changes remaining has nothing to do with this. As long as the false Grant statement remains in the article, I will be impelled to seek its removal by discussion and, when that does not work, action.

(3) Then on this ANI page, Renejs insisted he was falsely accused of edit-warring changes into the article, since none of his changes remained.

I've never claimed I was falsely accused of edit warring. That's a correct accusation. But you, Bill the Cat 7, etc. were also part of that edit war! And you've continued to edit war the Grant quote, whereas I've stopped reverting until this discussion (hopefully) reaches some sort of resolution.

(4) I then announced I would now feel free to restore the status quo text since Renejs no longer claimed to have any of his changes in it. After I reverted to the status quo. . .

It appears we may have made no progress at all. Merjering continues to manifest a colossal failure to hear. Once again: reverting to a proven false 'status quo' is always wrong. As noted in this discussion above, it's editing IN REVERSE.

(5) At no stage was the conflict over . . . others somehow wanting to truncate it to mislead others into believing there are no serious scholars who support the CMT or take it seriously.

Whoa. The only reason Gekritzl, myself, and certain other users insist upon removing the truncated Grant quote is because it leads the reader precisely to suppose that "there are no serious scholars who support the CMT or take it seriously." FYI, I believe that substituting the entire original Grant paragraph would be no better, for reasons given above. But that's a separate discussion. We're talking here about the proven false (short) form of the Grant citation which Meijering and a few others continue to force into the CMT article, come hell or high water.

Hey, folks, this isn't rocket science. The logic couldn't be simpler: (a) The short Grant citation is false. (b) Ergo, it needs to go. Period. End of discussion. Then we move on to other things. . . like added words, "annihilated," compromise version, blanking the whole paragraph, etc. etc. Of course, the problem is that we can't get to those other things until we get through this roadblock. Meijering has to become a productive user by allowing changes to the article based on verifiable content today. This is the problem!

A note on Meijering's (apparently new-found) sympathies for the CMT position and the uphill struggles it has no WIkipedia: You know, sometimes an adversary pretends to be your friend--and that's the worst kind of friend to have. I've seen him argue both sides of several issues. So, the bottom line for me is action, not words. And from what I've seen, his actions betray a thinly disguised anti-CMT position. Of course, I could be wrong--but it's irrelevant. I'll admit this, though: if he's my ally, he sure has a strange way of showing it!

(6) And now Renejs wants to take out Grant's criticism altogether because he personally thinks Grant is wrong!

Today, Grant is demonstrably wrong (at least in his short version) and your not seeing it makes me question your sympathies expressed in your immediately preceding paragraph. But the entire Grant paragraph has to be discussed separately. It has many elements and we can't get to them until we resolve the first element which has produced this roadblock: the short form of the Grant statement "no serious scholar." If we can't get rid of an obviously false assertion (which, incidentally, is precisely why I picked it), then we're never going to manage material which is far less black-and-white.

Unfortunately, nobody can do anything until Meijering--an active editor on the CMT page--changes his m.o. If someone makes a change, all he has to say is, "We don't have consensus for that." And so it's reverted back in. Even if a statement is false, he can still say: "We don't have a consensus for it's removal." And so it stays. Forever. Effectively, this has chilled the CMT page to the point where it is decades out of date and also anti-CMT (according to a neutral voice on this page above). My interest is to move it to the center and NPOV. I don't think that will be possible with Meijering's current m.o.

(7) Right now the only thing that is standing in the way of fixing the truncation is Renejs's disagreement.

Whoa again! This is disgusting. Show me, Meijering, where I've opposed adding words like "In 1977," and "or at any rate very few." It's entirely the opposite. You are a loose cannon now--very wild. . . Anybody can add those words at any time, as far as I'm concerned. For you to suggest otherwise is uncalled for. If you think I would remove them, you are more irrational than even I thought. You have now reached just about the epideme of nonsense.

(8) In other words, his insistence that Grant is wrong and should therefore not be included at all is keeping the truncated version in the article!

Does anybody understand this? How could my insistence that Grant is wrong be keeping it in the article? This may be one for the books. Seems it is another attempt to accuse me of what Meijering's been doing all along--like, you know: "Hey, pass the blame on him."

(9) If you simply mean that it is undesirable that the truncated quote remains in the article until we have a new consensus, then I agree completely, but I'm not sure what to do about it.

Easy answer: Get rid of the false statement. Why is this so difficult for you?

(10) During this whole conflict no one has ever suggested that anyone should unilaterally restore the full quote, you are the first to do so.

I can't see where Anthony said anything about unilaterally restoring the full quote. His question was: "Do you recognise that there is never any excuse for knowingly adding or restoring false and misleading information to Misplaced Pages?"

(11) I have been bending over backwards to offer Renejs a golden bridge out.

Sorry. You extend a poisoned hand to me. Renejs (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep it brief because people have complained about walls of text and I too have been guilty of producing them, for which I apologise. It now appears I misunderstood your objection. I'm hopefully correctly understanding you now if I say you do not object to adding back the truncated bits, but reserve the right to continue arguing for the deletion of the entire quote later. If so, I think we can and should insert the truncated bits right away, close this ANI complaint and then proceed to deal with any objections you may have. Perhaps this will require mediation as suggested by Ncmvocalist. I'd be all in favour of that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

More eyes please?

↑ The above sub-thread sums it up, IMO. I'm lost for words. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that nothing appears to have happened so far, I expect nothing will happen now either. I have observed that the sheer amount of text some user(s) in the above sub-thread are generating is overwhelmingly excessive. In fact, the excessive text and needless reversions to champion the BRD process are probably unhelpful even at the article too.

Still, it may be better if another attempt is made by the parties to resolve the dispute. One possible method is a type of mediation (have never used formal mediation, DRN, or informal mediation so I won't say much about that). The other method requires everyone to exercise more restraint without supervision. So what does the latter involve?

Short and simple questions need to be raised about proposed changes to the article (whether they are new changes or changes to go back to an older version of the article). The responses to the question need to be similarly concise. Some people dislike 'straw poll votes' but at least it clarifies what position each editor takes to each question, and the rest of the comment after the vote is reviewed to understand the rationale for why that position is adopted. Then if there is still no consensus, let the same question(s) be answered through an article RfC in the same format without walls of text overwhelming everyone. Then a request to assess the consensus can be made, and after it is closed, hopefully there is more clarity regarding what the consensus is.

My suggestion anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

TLDR summary

OK. Renejs (Rene) is a published author on the topic. He noticed a factual error based on an extremely old source (1977). Our article quoted a noted expert (Grant) as saying that no serious scholar had proposed the non-historicity of Jesus. So Rene added the fact that X and Y serious scholars have since come out and proposed exactly that.

We all know that's arguing with the source, so he was reverted. Edit wars and truly BITY discussion ensued. In the midst of this discussion, it turns out Grant had been selectively misquoted. He said no serious scholars proposed non-historicity - well a few have, but they've failed to convince anyone. (Or words to that effect I've just done an all-nighter and can't be bothered looking for the quote.) So, now it's clear we're misrepresenting the source when we just use the "short version" of Grant's statement.

More edit warring ensues, with Rene trying to add his "argument with the source" (the two scholars X and Y) while removing the misrepresentation of the 1977 source and being reverted, but when they revert him, Martijn Meijering and the other owners keep restoring the falsehood. This has been going on since the misrepresentation of the source was made clear and unanimously agreed to be a misrepresentation of the source on 2 January, and the misrepresentation of the source still stands.

Rene needs educating about WP:SYN and WP:EW. That's all. The others need a serious looking at. I've seriously looked at Martijn and he shouldn't be let near an article again until he acknowledges there is no excuse for repeatedly knowingly restoring misleading content. The same may apply to the others. I haven't looked.

Goodnight. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Since I've been accused of bad behaviour, I may perhaps be permitted to respond. I'll try to keep it as brief as possible on account of complaints about my earlier walls of text, for which I've apologised. I fully acknowledge I kept reverting to the status quo text even after I discovered it had been truncated. However, this was because I believed that was as far as the rules about edit-warring *permitted* me to go. I did however simultaneously propose on the Talk page what Anthonyhcole suggests I should have done straight away, which is to correct the truncation as well. I further believed (mistakenly as it now turns out) that Renejs objected to adding back the full quote even as an interim solution. If it turns out my interpretation was wrong and I should either have left Renejs's changes unchallenged or reverted them but corrected the truncation at the same time instead of merely calling for it, then I apologise unreservedly. I understand that misinterpreting the rules is not a justification, but I believe it is a mitigating circumstance, especially if the offensive behaviour was caused by a good faith abundance of caution, and a desire to follow the rules strictly, as it was, even though I may have ended up unintentionally breaking the rules rather than observing them. In any event, there now appears to be a total consensus that the truncated bits should be restored. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Observations, and Request for General Sanctions

First, at this point, without reviewing the long history of edit-warring on this article and related articles, I will Oppose any of the various site-ban proposals. The community appears to be deeply divided, and attempting to deal with a polarized community by topic-bans at this noticeboard usually further polarizes the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Second, the underlying problem is that cases involving the Historicity of Jesus, including Christ myth theory, that is, that there never was any historicity of Jesus, were deeply botched by the outgoing Arbitration Committee. Historicity of Jesus had been the subject of much disruptive editing for a long time. Then a specific editor showed up and began playing on that disruption, and was topic-banned. He then, in the only reasonable request that he made, requested that the ArbCom impose discretionary sanctions. ArbCom accepted a case, but, in spite of evidence that discretionary sanctions were in order, simply decided to affirm the topic-ban, as if the disruption had started with that editor, which it had not. Christ myth theory still needs discretionary sanctions. Topic-bans are probably still needed for several editors, but that decision should be made via the discretionary sanctions process, not via hyper-ventilation and hyper-emotional process here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Rather than imposing topic-bans on any specific editors, the community should impose community general sanctions on the topic of Historicity of Jesus, including Christ myth theory, which denies the historicity. Since ArbCom sanctions do work better than community sanctions, the ArbCom should be requested to reopen the arbitration to convert these community sanctions into ArbCom sanctions, but that can be done in parallel.

• Support community sanctions, as proposer, for Historicity of Jesus, broadly defined. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for the record; premature and other steps in dispute resolution need to be properly tried for this dispute as I said in the section above. If problems remain/persist after those attempts are undertaken properly, and it goes beyond an issue concerning certain editors, then I'd reconsider - but there is simply no need to put a scheme until that is established. GS or DS is not the status quo, and should be used sparingly as a final option only, as it can be just as disruptive to building an encyclopedia as it can in assisting for that to occur. If there are other issues, it should be raised in a separate thread and not clamped onto the end of this one because there is a sign of division on an issue. I also think it's fairly foolish to ask for community sanctions if ac sanctions are sought. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says User:Magnolia677

This isn't a coincidence or a "shared interest"; This is a pattern of abuse, in which Magnolia677 falsely projects an interest in all things New Jersey in order to get his pound of flesh because I demanded in the past that he add sources.

1) I first encountered User:Magnolia677 when he was operating under User:Richard apple and problems arose quickly as he persisted in adding material and refused to add sources. Here, in April 2013 I asked that he "be sure to always add sources for all edits like these" adding notables. He blindly reverted the edits, so I asked again for sources. He was back to his ways days later, so I asked again for the required references. He in turn deleted the request, yet again. By July 2013 he was at it again, so I asked yet one more time and he deleted the message, again. I asked about another unsourced edit and seemed to have set him off.

2) In a rambling reply on my talk page, Magnolia677 comes out and makes the attacks that foreshadow his present abuse: "You do a lot of edits, and you have certainly added to Misplaced Pages. But you don't own it. When you act so harshly with people who add to articles about New Jersey, you inhibit them from contributing. This is a problem.... And please note... 'Harassment, threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Misplaced Pages'" explicitly citing Misplaced Pages:Harassment. He knows full well what WP:Harassment means, but thinks that asking for sources is harassment.

3) I wasn't the only one raising the issue, with John from Idegon warning about unsourced edits, edit warring and removing talk page edits and refusing to discuss. The Rambling Man asks here followed by Nightscream asking for sources.

4) On December 11, 2013, Richard apple became Magnolia677, presumably looking to move past his tainted start as a belligerent editor who refuses to add appropriate sources.

5) As Richard apple, he had no apparent strong interest in places in New Jersey, with just 6 in February 2013; 5 in April 2013; 2 in July 2013; and 22 in August 2013. Even as Magnolia677 he had little interest, with 2 in December 2013, 1 in February 2014; 3 in March 2014 and 2 in October 2014. In almost two full years of editing, our "New Jersey expert" has barely achieved 40 edits to places in the state.

6) Then the floodgates open. Starting on November 21, 2014, Mr. Mississippi, the Magnolia Stater, has developed a fascinating -- and disturbing -- interest in the Garden State. I love New Jersey too, but he starts gushing with hundreds upon hundreds of edits a month for the state, quite often, as described above, deliberately provoking confrontations on such trivial matters as flag usage, pushpin maps, the use of page links in pdf references and other argumentative bullshit. Thousands of edits in two months for a place he had never cared about before.

7) Magnolia677 knows what WIkipedia:Harassment is -- "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons.... Harassment can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place." -- and he's doing a damned deliberate job of it.

We have enough strong and strongminded editors who are knowledgeably and competently creating and expanding articles about New Jersey and we don't need the malevolence of a Magnolia677, who has manufactured himself into an "expert" on the state solely for the purpose of maliciously provoking confrontations so that he can run here to ANI to complain about how he has been mistreated. If it was up to me, I'd site ban him immediately per WP:NOTHERE, but a topic ban and interaction ban should be imposed on Magnolia677 at a minimum. Vengeance belongs to the Lord, and perhaps to a few Misplaced Pages admins, but this kind of shameless abuse of process for the purpose of exacting revenge on another editor has no place on Misplaced Pages. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Could an administrator please step in?

I've come to ANI over and over to get some relief from this editor's relentless bullying. I actually have a strong connection to New Jersey, and wanted to have several thousand edits under my belt before I started editing New Jersey, because I learned early that New Jersey belongs to one editor and I wanted to know how to defend my edits.

Now he thinks I've spent the past two months creating articles about New Jersey just to torment him. This is beyond weird.

Last night I added Ridgeway, New Jersey and Brookside, New Jersey. Does anyone here really think this was done "solely for the purpose of maliciously provoking confrontations"?

"We have enough strong and strongminded editors who are knowledgeably and competently creating and expanding articles about New Jersey and we don't need the malevolence of a Magnolia677". Alansohn, I have news for you. I'll edit where I please. You don't own New Jersey and you don't own Misplaced Pages.

And this "vengeance belongs to the Lord" stuff is creepy. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

And dragging my ass here AGAIN, over crap that Magnolia did over 18 months ago, without notifying me, is beyond annoying. An administrator needs to do something. I have better things to do. John from Idegon (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I will ever understand this New Jersey drama. As far as I can tell, this is a rehash of drama from 2013. None of the diffs are even from the past year, and the complaints about recent activity lack any evidence. The last part of Alansohn's rant reads like textbook WP:OWN. And I really don't understand all this talk of vengeance and malevolence. Since no recent diffs were provided, I looked at New Jersey. No recent edits from Magnolia677. Then I looked at Magnolia677's recent edits. I saw him create sourced articles at Brookside, New Jersey, Ridgeway, New Jersey, and Bunnvale, New Jersey. I see no edit warring, disruption, or malevolence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't the last episode of Alansohn vs Magnolia677 just put to rest recently? Unless Alansohn can bring something credible to the table, they're going to need a ban from posting anything to ANI regarding Magnolia677. Blackmane (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

For reference:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#New Jersey is NOT owned by one editor
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Bullying, intimidation, and ownership of articles
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#Removal of two edit summaries

I would suggest an interaction ban, but then they'd just start even more threads on here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• The list goes on, but in addition to the three incidents reported by User:Magnolia677 as listed by NinjaRobotPirate, we need to add the most recent allegation, where Magnolia demands that "ridiculous edit summaries" be removed regarding his most recent incidents of WP:Wikihounding violations. This is the fourth time that Magnolia677 has dragged my ass here to ANI and the fourth time that no action was taken; zero for four. Why? Because I provided the evidence to support the stalking / hounding claim, and as Drmies wrote here, "You have given three examples, and in the two cases where you said "the editor hasn't been here before" you were certainly correct. In other words, I am beginning to see your point." The history above provides some explanation for why Magnolia677 is provoking confrontations and then running in tears to ANI to demand action and exact some sort of creepy revenge. Magnolia677 has never explained why he made these edits to these articles, other than to argue that he'll edit whatever he damn well wants to, regardless of the consequences. The ANI, and the way it has focused on his lengthy history of refusing to comply with Misplaced Pages policy, seems to have encouraged him to back off from further abuse while the ANI is in progress, a step forward in itself. But it appears that a topic ban is needed here and that an interaction ban on his part is necessary. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I find this New Jersey drama pretty fascinating too. Even if I moved on and began editing in some other state (I like Michigan), the New Jersey problem wouldn't go away. When I started editing Misplaced Pages two years ago, my first truly negative encounter was with Alansohn. Even then, I acknowledged his skill and contributions, but expressed concern about his aggressive online behavior and what seemed his ownership of articles.

In the past few months, as I've made several edits to New Jersey, it's become overwhelmingly apparent that many articles about that state are a reflection of his personal style.

The problem is, some of his personal preferences are extremely "cruft-like", as I tried to address at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Standardization of New Jersey city/town articles. And some are just wrong. For example, he has dogmatically insisted that every article I create about New Jersey have the township listed. Look at this nasty edit summary. But, the source he uses is completely unreliable. Please see my comments about this concern to User talk:Famartin regarding "Duck Island" and "Zion, New Jersey".

What is interesting about the posts as Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Standardization of New Jersey city/town, which is the primary posting board for New Jersey-related topics, is that not one editor supported him or took his defense.

In fact, one of the only places I've ever seen a New Jersey editor support Alansohn was here, where User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) agreed that the pushpin map I preferred using should be replaced by the kind Alansohn used. Then I noticed that Norton was a discredited editor banned from creating articles about New Jersey. Some support.

Have a look at this intro to the Wiki article about bullying..."bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power. Behaviors used to assert such domination can include verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion, and such acts may be directed repeatedly towards particular targets." I have experienced many online behaviors which fit this pattern.

When Alansohn started out, you can see here the number of times he was blocked for his poor online behavior. But then they stopped.

The bullying article further states: "Often, bullying takes place in the presence of a large group of relatively uninvolved bystanders. In many cases, it is the bully's ability to create the illusion that he or she has the support of the majority present that instills the fear of "speaking out" in protestation of the bullying activities being observed by the group. Unless the "bully mentality" is effectively challenged in any given group in its early stages, it often becomes an accepted, or supported, norm within the group. Unless action is taken, a "culture of bullying" is often perpetuated within a group for months, years, or longer."

Could it be that Alansohn's behavior towards me has sent a message to other New Jersey editors about what they can expect if they disagree with him?

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm pretty sure an interaction ban wouldn't help. I do feel strongly though, that the New Jersey articles would benefit a lot if different editors with different styles and opinions were free to edit New Jersey articles without fear of Alansohn.

Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

At least User:Magnolia677 has come out of the closet and acknowledges that this is about some sick revenge for my actions two years ago. "When I started editing Misplaced Pages two years ago, my first truly negative encounter was with Alansohn. Even then, I acknowledged his skill and contributions, but expressed concern about his aggressive online behavior and what seemed his ownership of articles." What exactly did I do two years ago? Ask for sources for material for which Magnolia677 refused to comply. I (and other editors) asked for sources and / or discussion here, here, (acknowledged a source here), here, here, here, here, here, by John from Idegon, here again, here too, here by Nightscream, here, here and here again by Nightscream, more than a dozen pleas to add sources, all of which had been ignored or deleted by Magnolia677. When Magnolia677 finally acknowledged the need to add sources (here), he received thanks from Nightscream and thanks from me. I'm not sure what else could have been done differently other than to have site banned him then after the sixth or seventh ignored request for sources. Sure, chunks of his editing since then is not aimed at deliberate provocation, but his goal here is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS done to him when he first started editing. It is this demented aim to avenge the repeated pleas from multiple editors to add the reliable and verifiable sources that Misplaced Pages requires that drives Magnolia677 to seek to exact his pound of flesh and run here to ANI on no less than four occasions. Someone who has this demented motivation has no place in Misplaced Pages. Let's start with a topic ban and interaction ban and proceed from there. Alansohn (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• You just called me "demented" twice. How dare you! I think the biggest fib on Misplaced Pages is that you're from New Jersey, because big thorny cactus don't grow in the Garden State, and everyone I've ever met from Jersey are decent folks who have respect for others. You're just a big bully who doesn't give a hoot who he insults or what lies he writes about people. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As a proud saguaro, spreading my thorny arms over the swamps of the Meadowlands, I can assure you that I am indeed from New Jersey, no fib. I have the exorbitant property tax bills and the lack of experience pumping my own gas to prove it, and I might even be able to take a selfie with Governor Christie as further evidence. I apologize for duplicating an adjective. However, the lack of any rebuttal or offense at the history of the efforts to convince you that you must add sources -- and your persistent refusal to comply -- is rather telling. Since you had filed this fourth and most recent ANI, you have been a good bit less aggressive in creating confrontations through your edits. User:Magnolia677, while I wish you the best of luck in your journeys across this great country of ours, I still think that these problematic motivations in trying to get back at me for my past efforts to get you to add sources is rather disturbing. I hope that a topic ban and interaction ban can help prevent any more damage from further incidents of stalking and harassment on your part. Alansohn (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think some sort of interaction ban is probably called for, unfortunately, at least on Alanshn's side. I notice, despite a comment in another recent thread involving him that he had changed, Alansohn seems to continue to revel in the use of vulgarity and personal aspersions, and on that basis, if this is the way he acts after changing, I have to think that maybe banning him from interacting with others who find even his "changed" personality toxic is probably a reasonable idea. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• If I understand you correctly, User:Magnolia677 refuses to add sources after a dozen pleas and requests from me and multiple other editors and now comes back to get his revenge, and who is causing the problem here? Alansohn (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• The person who is hyperdramatically escalating the problem, once again, unfortunately, by starting this thread with the wildly obnoxious and prejudicial headline and the allegations, and once again as John of Idgeon said, dragging him in without even bothering to notify him, as he indicated above, is you, yes. There are other ways to resolve this, but, apparently, they may not be melodramatic enough for you? Your frankly disgusting insistence on calling others "demented" (twice in this thread) seems to indicate that you may be basically incapable of dealing with any sort of disagreement in a reasonable way, and on that basis I would have to say that your actions in starting this thread in the overdramatic way you did, even to the point of from the beginning casting unsupported and overdramatic allegations of "vengeance" as the motivation of others, without evidence of course, shows that your conduct and ability to work in a reasonable way with others is itself extremely problematic, and that behavior would seem to merit sanctions, as it is as we both know something you have been advised about repeatedly, apparently without any results. Other more reasonable and less self-dramahtizing editors can probably reasonably deal with any more minor problems without your involvement, or your rather obvious tendency to escalate them. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions

I think some sort of sanctions are clearly called for here. Personally, I think the person most in need of sanctions in this instance is probably Alansohn himself, as indicated by my comments above, but I acknowledge that this is just a personal opinion. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• The person who created the thread was User:Magnolia677, who was complaining about edit summaries. At some point, this section was turned from a subsection into a freestanding section of its own, and Magnolia677's complaints about claims of Wikihounding on his part were removed. I have provided evidence, as requested, of Wikihounding -- as confirmed by Drmies -- and Magnolia677 describes himself above that he came back to editing New Jersey articles because he was bothered by his bad experiences the first time, when he was adding content without sources. Magnolia677 has started four separate threads here about my edits, and even when he was refusing to add sources I started none. I've provided dozens of diffs to support the claims I've made and the best Magnolia677 can do is complain about a duplicate adjective and insist that I'm not really from New Jersey. So you want to take action on mere "personal opinion"? Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Magnolia677 and his latest edit war

User:Magnolia677 seemed to be avoiding confrontations while this discussion was ongoing, but he is back to his usual games.

1) In several venues, Magnolia677 has edit warred about a note included at the top of the Notables section in hundreds of articles. After he had initiated several previous edit wars on this topic, he started a centralized discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Standardization of New Jersey city/town articles. He raised his points, I raised mine. With no consensus supporting him at the centralized discussion, he started another discussion at Talk:Basking Ridge, New Jersey (here) and removed the heading with the edit summary per talk page discussion, though there had been no discussion and no consensus for removal. After responding at the talk page and reinserting the heading as part of an expansive edit of the article, he removed it again without any discussion, with the edit summary Please wait for consensus on talk page before adding this. After I reinserted the heading with an explanation, he blindly reverted it, this time saying this editor created this inaccurate heading without consensus, and has received no consensus supporting it, followed by some more forum shopping.

2) WP:USCITIES is a guideline -- it is *NOT* policy -- and offers no guidance as to the presence, absence or mandated wording from on high of a note at the top of the Notables section. It has no bearing as a justification to remove or reword the heading that appears here or anywhere. In the absence of a Misplaced Pages guideline or policy, we editors have the flexibility and creativity to build articles, and this is what has been done in millions of articles.

3) These headings have been the de facto standard in hundreds of articles for years. I didn't know that I and other editors need to obtain consensus before making any change to an article, as Magnolia677 has demanded, nor that his approval is needed to maintain a longstanding status quo. This demand would cripple Misplaced Pages, as every edit -- no matter how long it has been in an article -- would be subject to the veto of any other editor. Even worse would be granting this dictatorial power to a belligerent editor like Magnolia677, who has turned a lengthy series of articles across the state of New Jersey into his own personal battlefield.

Magnolia677 appears to be creating confrontation solely for the sake of turning Misplaced Pages into a war of his own making. As requested above, the appropriate sanctions should include both a topic ban and interaction ban. Alansohn (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This seems like a case of a double boomerang, not only because of the forum shopping by Magnolia, but also by the OP's own behavior. Erpert 05:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to do anything about the underlying drama. We could try out an interaction ban, but then they'd probably just start even more pointless ANI threads, like I said above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I was actually trying to play by the rules. Yesterday I cleaned up Basking Ridge, New Jersey. Of course, being in New Jersey, it had Alansohn's "personal touches" all over it. I deleted one of them, and gave a detailed explanation on the talk page about my reason. So as NOT to appear forum shopping, I disclosed that there was also a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Standardization of New Jersey city/town articles, where this same concern was raised--but not responded to (except by Alansohn). Of course, Alansohn reverted the edit at Basking Ridge. So, instead of getting into an edit war, I asked for a third opinion. Because Alansohn stalks all my edits, he saw that I left a message at "third opinion", and added his own message there (despite the rule at "third opinion" that "no discussion of the issue should take place here"). But who cares about rules? Erpert, who watches over Third opinion, looked at Basking Ridge, labelled it "forum shopping", and still, I have no third opinion about something I have raised on two talk pages! As I said, I'm trying to play by the rules here. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Soka Gakkai page

This concerns editor Ubikwit. On the page Soka Gakkai. The Soka Gakkai is a lay religion based on the Buddhist teachings of a 13th century monk. It was originally aligned with – though a separate entity from – a clerical sect called Nichiren Shoshu. The latter excommunicated the Soka Gakkai in 1991, and there has been no connection since.

At issue, currently, is the content of placement of the “Beliefs and Practices” section of the entry. The administrator, Shii, along with 4 other editors (plus myself) agree, at least to some extent, that there is sufficient scholarship supporting the independence of Soka Gakkai belief; and that, as a consequence, it’s “Beliefs and Practices” subsection can precede the “History” subsection, in which its former relationship with Nichiren Shoshu is covered.

This would be consistent with Misplaced Pages’s treatment of other newer religions.

Editor Ubikwit reverts every attempt to change the content of the positioning of this subsection. He does do with nodiscussion of the issues, and has been asked numerous times by various editors to refrain from doing so – to no avail. The last time he reverted with no discussion (January 18th) I undid his revert and asked him point blank on the Talk page to discuss before he reverted again. He did not discuss, but once again reverted and left me a "warning" on my Talk page.

He is accusing me of advocacy, but the Advocacy guidelines indicate that advocacy can mean hoping to portray something in either a positive or negative light. The Soka Gakkai entry was, at one time, heavily negative. What I (and some other editors) have tried to do is achieve balance, using acceptable and credible academic sources. The information that reflects negatively remains, but positive information has been added. Ubikwit seems to be of the opinion that negativity is "neutral" while positivity is "advocacy". However, the administrator has expressed satisfaction with the changes that have been made in recent months. I have tried to discuss this with Ubikwit, but have received no response, other than his insistence that my sources are being self-promotional.

The current discussion of this on the Talk Page is in the subsection “Citation Has Gone Missing”. An earlier discussion of the same topic is still active in the subsection “Another major reversion”. In the Archives (18), here, there are two subsections on the issue: ”, in which, btw, the administrator states “We already had a discussion about this and I believe Ubikwit is in the minority. There is no clear format among religion articles, for example, Bahá'í Faith and Christian Science have beliefs sections first, while Scientology has it otherwise. In the SG article there is a good argument that SG beliefs are unfamiliar enough that they can be explained first and may help provide context for the History section. Shii (tock) 19:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC”. But it had to be addressed again in the sub : started by still another editor.

It was also addressed here (17) in ”; here (16) in “”. And ] (15), I think, is the first attempt, on August 26th. You will see in all that discussion very little of Ubikwit, and many mentions of his un-discussed reversions.

We have a consensus among a vast majority of active editors. We have sources that support what I am trying to do. We have made arguments for the changes, and there have been no academic arguments made against the changes. Yet Ubukwit keeps reverting the changes. He ignores others’ comments, and he doesn’t seem to care about what the consensus is. He just keeps reverting, over and over, with no regard for what research has been done, what other editors say, what arguments are made on the Talk page.

What can we do to ensure the best Soka Gakkai page we can? Can we stop this disruptive editing?

Here ] are the changes I made, starting with "Soka Gakkai believes..." Here ] is the current entry after Ubikwit's latest reversion - nearly half way down the entry.

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What is a "lay religion"? Is that not a contradiction? BMK (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Close, but not always. In this case it more or less means that the group was founded in a schism from the ordained priesthood, and that none of the members are necessarily priests or clerics. John Carter (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Learn something new every day. BMK (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) Actually, the schism didn't develop until long after the founding of the group as what is known as a Hokkeko. There is no such thing as a "lay religion", only lay groups associated with an established religion.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a huge mess that will not see resolution and I doubt any of the overworked admins here want to step in. If anyone wants to understand what the problem is, I left a message at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Dorje_Shugden_controversy about why these kinds of articles are likely to decrease in quality over time owing to a lapse in academic standards. I won't be repeating that here.

Ubikwit and I, the two long-term editors involved with this page, are basically no longer engaging with the large-scale rewrite by SPIs that uses academic but incomplete sources. Indeed, I don't think there is anything we can do about this article within the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. Ubikwit has simply resorted first and foremost to revert warring, and I have basically absented myself from editing. RIP Misplaced Pages Shii (tock) 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is bit of a joke to accuse Ubikwit of disruptive editing. I do engage on the talk page just like on the Ikeda page … I do no large edits unless SGIists go ab bit too far. I said often enough that on the quality scale the article is deteriorating big times. The sock puppet issue does need to get tackled. As soon as debates and controversies get heated some editors vanish and a new one appears out of the blue. Strange indeed. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I would refer to reverting the attempts to restructure the article in a wholesale manner so as to promote the SG to Misplaced Pages refers as "revert warring", but I have reverted such attempts, twice now, to preserve NPOV, etc. It should be noted that there was a discussion after the first attempt, but then Daveler attempted to go against consensus and try to restructure the article in exactly the same manner, and subsequently reverted my restoration of the consensus status quo.

There are a number of advocates operating on the article, attempting to promote SG in an outreach manner, appropriating Misplaced Pages to that end. I would be in agreement that there is sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on, but like Catflap, the amount of time I have to devote to this article is very limited.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Should the problem continue, I really think that this case, and the other one Shii mentioned, and maybe a few others could all be presented to ArbCom for if nothing else discretionary sanctions. The biggest problem areas we have, at least to my mind, are, pseudoscience, new religious movements (broadly construed), and modern scientific or minority scientific views of early history and religion. John Carter (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No doubt. I wouldn't mind seeing a boomerang for the preemptive strike Daveler16 has attempted here, though. The statements he makes above about consensus, for example, are diametrically opposed to the facts. Not only is he pretending not to hear, he is misrepresenting the state of affairs in an attempt to unduly influence the content dispute.

In my opinion, he should have been topic banned long ago.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to more clearly propose sanctions in a subsection below, maybe particularly indicating the specific nature of sanctions proposed and the reasons for them, such a proposal may get enough input to generate some sort of positive results. Personally, I have to agree that some sort of boomerang is possibly called for here, but am not myself sure just what terms should be applied. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the major problem with this group of SPIs is that they are adding large amounts of reliably sourced (by strict WP standards, although lacking in a bigger NPOV perspective) material that supports their bias, which has led to an overly long, messy, and barely coherent article. The material is not bad per se and they are not generally removing critical material, as an earlier, far worse editor did. Nothing they have done merits a topic ban or block, although this continues to be a contentious discussion with too much reverting. Shii (tock) 15:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be excusing the blatant attempts to convert the article into a promotional pitch for the Soka Gakkai that the "group of SPIs", as you call them, are engaged in. I certainly hope that you are not referring to my reverts of the multiple attempts to place the "Beliefs and Practices" section before the "History" section.

Moreover, there have been continual attempts at obfuscation and deletion of critical material over the past several months, including the reference to "brainwashing", for example. To counter that I had to order two out-of-print books in Japanese online and post text from them. And it currently appears that a similar effort may be underway at the Daisaku Ikeda page about the Ogasawara incident ("Raccoon dog" priest incident), which Catflap informed me of. I posted Japanese text related to that under the relevant Talk page discussion, because there appear to be sourcing issues, though I don't have time to go through that material in detail.

Who knows where all of these SPIS SPAs come from, but they certainly have much more free time than I do, and there appear to be multiple distinct groups of SPIS SPAs covering different but related articles, such as those on the Soka Gakkai article and those on the Ikeda Daisaku article. Who has time to investigate such ongoings? Apparently that is not something that admins are tasked with, and regular editors like myself and Catflap do not have the time to engage such a large "group of SPIS SPAs".

It is clear that Daveler16 and Brandeburg have been continually engaged in advocacy, and in some cases going against consensus; here, accusing me of violating consensus is an underhanded tactic that I would think should amount to some sort of violation. It was totally retaliatory after I left a warning about WP:ADVOCACY on his Talk page. It's a false accusation about my conduct made with the intention of getting the upper hand in a content dispute, which they have lost (i.e., consensus is against them) and refuse to acknowledge. They haven't started any RFCs, etc., and are simply trying to game the system.

For any uninvolved admins looking at this, here, for example, is a list of five freshly minted SPIs working on one of the articles at issue, since December

Elemential1

Basicallyyes

Findemnow

TokyoSunrise

LovLove

Daveler16 along with BradenburgG are the two main SPIS SPAs working on the Soka Gakkai article, while BrandenburgG has been editing the Daisaku Ikeda article as well, but has made 90% of the edits on the Soka Gakkai article since December. Daveler16 recently attempted to carry out a major refactoring of the article against consensus by slipping it among the recent flurry of incremental edits by BrandenburgG. That had been reverted before and discussed, and consensus was clearly not for such a refactoring.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I continue to hold that these SPIs are acting in good faith and simply don't realize that they the article that results from their efforts is an imbalanced and essentially biased one. If I were being paid hourly to edit Misplaced Pages I would happily engage with them and formulate a new policy in order to get this article under control. But we do it for free... Shii (tock) 17:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Shii may well be right. The reason I mentioned pseudoscience, new religious movements, and modern politics and economics as being among our most problematic areas is that those seem to be areas where WP:TRUTH, in one sort or other, most often arises. People who are, sometimes for good reason, very, very interested in something in which they have very strong beliefs, of whichever sort, and want to tell the world about how wonderful it is, are among the most frequent newer editors at such topics, and, in those cases where they have read everything published by (for instance) SGI but nothing from any independent sources, they also tend to think that they are among the most and best informed on the topic. Convincing them to the contrary is often extremely difficult, if not impossible in some cases. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

While I don't doubt that those areas are problematic for the reasons mentioned, there are policies, and some of those have been referred to repeatedly.
That is partly why, unlike Shii, I don't see all of the editing at issue as being done in good faith.
This issue started way back in early October, and much discussion had taken place before the most recent repeat of major refactoring and subsequent revert, which was a replay of October. The following is a collection of some of the representative moments and comments pertaining to the content dispute and conduct, starting with October.
Way back in October, Daveler16 revealed a plan
My comment in response
Followed by Shii
first reversion of BOLD major refactoring of article (moving Beliefs & Practices to top) without consensus
1st Talk page discussion following BOLD edit and revert
relevant comment by John Carter
followed by WP:OR comment by Daveler16 revealing his overall disposition
Daveler16 removes RS-sourced material, replaces it with POV promotional text
Daveler16 misrepresents source in trying to decontextualize Beliefs & Practices section
Discussed here on talk page Daveler16 failed to address misrepresentation
Then he leads one to believe that he didn’t read the edit summary in which I state the page number, even after I challenge him on the evasion
from “Another major reversion” Talk page section, all of which should be read
BrandenburgG makes a comment providing historical context to refute me
I reply
Finally, this section “Big Problem?” should also be read
--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with some of the statements above. I believe Daveler's description and complaint are 100% valid. I don't think Ubikwit and Catflap recognize the extent that their personal lenses affect their contributions.

Let me get personal here because I've been mentioned several times. I consider myself a new editor to WP, about a half year. I am being accused of being a SPI or a SPA and frankly I don't know what they mean.

I've been working hard on this article and I believe I deserve some credit for my time and efforts. I consider myself to be sincere, hard-working, reasonable and honest. I recognize my biases and faults. I believe some of the descriptions of my work above are mean and discouraging.

However, my motivation for working so adamantly is traced to when I came across the SG article. Frankly speaking, as a SG member I was horrified. It was not NPOV by any means!

• For example, the accusations that the SGI was a cult appeared 4 times in a single article, starting from the opening paragraphs. This is quite horrific especially when the entire scholarship about cults has discredited the notion that there is any such thing as a cult.
• People like Toda and Ikeda were treated in ways that ignored their contributions and grossly exaggerated their faults.
• The beliefs and practices of the Soka Gakkai were explained in ways that were unrecognizable to SG members.
• Scholarship from the 1960s and 1970s was predominating and used to describe the current organization; recent and emerging scholarship was being ignored.

As was mentioned above, I have added sources and have not deleted anything to the best of my knowledge. I believe the sources I have used are excellent and complete. Where I have used scholarship improperly please notify me and I will immediately apologize and edit.

I do agree with the above editors on two points:

1. I admit to working too fast and furious. This was only pointed out to me by Catflap a couple of days ago. I recognize her point here and understand that such a pace makes it hard for others to critique and I apologize. I must tell you that my wife fully agrees with Catflap on this point.
2. I agree that the article is too long and has many stylistic issues.

The solution that I would like to propose is drawn from conflict resolution techniques. I recommend that two and only two editors work on condensing the article and making sure the resulting article is balanced. This work could take place on someone's Sandbox. The two editors should represent different points of perspective to assure balance. BrandenburgG (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no "blatant attempt to convert the article nto a promotional pitch for the SGI". For a very long time, the article was little more than a hatchet job on the SG, with nearly every other paragraph containing phrases like "brain washing cult" and "fascist" and "cult of personality" In fact, this is an international, widely respected movement(with critics, yes, which no one is denying) that has established educational institutions in various countries, has partnered with the U.N, the Simon Wiesenthal Museum, Morehouse College, and others, on various projects. None of that would be possible were the SG as sinister as Misplaced Pages formerly made it out to be. The SG's honorary president has carried out dialogues with Arnold Toynbee, Rene Huyghe, Aurelio Peccei, Linus Pauling and others - people who are not easily duped or brainwashed. To introduce balance - reflecting that, perhaps, some writers have perceived the movement as positive is not "self-promotion" or "advocacy".

Likewise, until a few months ago the Beliefs and Practices of the SG were depicted solely in terms of how they relate to other secyts of Buddhism - especially Nichiren Shoshu. Just a little research found that the SG has beliefs are separate from Nichiren Shoshu's, and always have been, and that these separate and original beliefs are what motivates its practices. There is no reason whatsoever that the B&P section should begin "Until the 1991 split with the Nichiren Shōshū, Sōka Gakkai existed within the Shōshū framework...", especially since about a fifth of bthe "History" subsection is taken up with the former association - and it's constant history of disagreements.

"Advocacy", remember, can also be negative, and that is what seems to be going on here. There seems to be a faction that wants to ensure that the overall impression of the Soka Gakkai gleaned from Misplaced Pages is that it's sinister in tactics annd derivative in doctrine, and that's why reverts continue in the face of scholarship and consensus.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, this is a content issue rather than a conduct issue, but one of the odd things about this case is that any sect claiming to be the "true Buddhism" ideally should be "derivative in doctrine". Soka Gakkai, in contrast, has a large number of interesting new doctrines aimed towards turning lay believers into practitioners. Hence the confusing term, "lay religion". Shii (tock) 02:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I will like to agree on what you said and this falls on cultural and education movement of Soka Gakkai. I will like to provide my view on this moement.

If Soka Gakkai is an "brain washing cult", "fascist" or "cult of personality" organisation, why did Singapore and Malaysia approve SOka Gakkai to establish the school in the country.

Please bear in mind that Singapore had one of the most restrictive law when it come to human right. They have managed to ban many extremist organisation as well as terroist in their countries. Among them are Jemaah Islamiyah, Falun Gong, ISIS. How come Soka Gakkai was not charged under Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act for being "brain washing cult", "fascist" or "cult of personality" in Singapore. Instead why did the Singapore government every year keep inviting SGI to participate in the National Day Parade performances.

There is a reason why there are too many citation in Soka Gakkai as well as Daisaku Ikeda. It is because there are some editors who like to reverts all the contribution which do not have any reliable source at all. One of them is Scandiescot (talk · contribs).

There is one more editor who also refute Catflap and Ubikwit quite a lot of time previously and the person is Margin1522 (talk · contribs). Kelvintjy (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Might also point out that Ubukwit has participated more here in 2 dayys than he has for a month on the relevant Talk page. Catflap earlier mentioned Ubikwit on the NPOV Noticeboard, and this was one of the replied: "Looking at the article, I am seeing a considerable amount of verified content being deleted and then restored (1, 2), as well as a good bit of discussion on the talk page. Questions about sources should be taken to WP:RSN. I only see one comment on the talk page by the above editor, but many comments by User:Daveler16; this causes me some concern.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)"/ That's ], btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs)

Since my name has been mentioned, maybe I could give my perspective. I arrived at the article by chance, answering a request to fix an AGRL on the talk page. I was rather shocked by article, which struck me as a blatantly POV attack page. Readers were complaining. After fixing the AGRL, I made one edit trying restore some balance to the description of the organization’s founder. It was immediately reverted (diff), which was one indication of where the problems were coming from.

As background, this is an organization with many political and religious enemies in Japan, especially on the extreme right-wing fringe. There is an anti-Soka Gakkai industry with its home in the tabloid press – about as far as you can get from reliable sources. To the extent that the article uses those sources, it’s going to be biased and not up to WP standards. For a while, while I was contributing to the article, my main focus was trying to get rid of the worst of those sources, by explaining on the talk page how bad they are and replacing them with better ones. It was like pulling teeth. Once, in the only time that I have ever resorted to dispute resolution, I asked for a third opinion. The decision (here) was to remove the source. Since then the source has been restored, as if the 3O had never happened, and we are back to where we started. But I’ve left it as it is and haven’t pursued it further, because I think there are bigger problems.

The biggest, IMO, has been edit warring and reversions. Especially by Ubikwit, who must have dozens of reversions in his edit history, usually with nothing more than a curt edit summary. However, it’s better than it was. I’ve spent a lot of time arguing on the talk page that all editors should be allowed to contribute, and in fact all participants are now able to contribute. I don’t support any kind of ban on Ubikwit. He has shown many times that he will accept edits and suggestions as long as the sources are good enough.

Nor do I support any kind of boomerang against Daveler16. Thanks to his contributions, the article is far better balanced than it used to be, and complaints are down. The point of this discussion is whether the section that he contributes to should come first in the article. He’s argued for that many times on the Talk page, and tried to execute it, and been reverted every time. My own opinion is that I’m not against it, although it would require a major rewrite of the article. IMO this kind of major restructuring needs consensus on the Talk page, which may never come. So my advice is to just accept that and concentrate on making the "Beliefs and practices" section as good as it can be. There are many other associated articles and no lack of work that needs to be done.

As for the content, I agree with Shii that the article is getting very long. Although the contributions from the new editors are welcome, I'd like to ask them to realize that they may not all survive, as is, in some future version that will fairly represent all of the many points of view that exist about this organization. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This ANI filing seems a bit like a content dispute. And would people please for heaven's sake wikilink the wiki acronym WP:SPA and spell it correctly, rather than making people, including new editors, guess what it means? Just glancing at the article, I find it mind-numbingly long, especially the History section. It would do well to try to summarize and be concise throughout. That said, my understanding, if I'm not mistaken, is that Nichiren (and by extension SG?) are the largest religions in Japan, so maybe some length is justified. It is concerning if there are a lot of WP:SPAs bloating and skewing the article, and that should be watched out for and WP:NPOV preserved. On the other hand, we need to avoid having the article be overly critical, or having WP:UNDUE weight placed upon the criticisms. I do find it a bit odd that the word "cult" is in the lede three times, which seems a bit prejudicial. Also, I think the article needs to differentiate better between SG in Japan and SG outside of Japan. Right now it doesn't do that well, and most of the criticism stuff seems to be about SG in Japan, which to my mind shouldn't be conflated with SG in the rest of the world. Softlavender (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is probably the case that most of the material in English relates to SGI, not SG. Breaking the present article down into two separate articles might be something to consider.

The word "cult" appears three times for sound reasons. The first mention documents that is a frequently found attribution; the second is a recent attempt to describe the group in related terms and deny the attribution (included per NPOV at the insistence of pro-SG editors); and the third relates to the role of Ikeda as a charismatic leader of the group(s). I don't see anything prejudicial there.

The article is not "mind-numbingly long" because Nichiren is the largest religion in Japan (a spurious claim), it is too long because it has been bloated with fluff that has been inserted in a manner such as to obfuscate central points and subvert the encyclopedic quality of the article for the promotional purposes.

Here is a concrete example of recently added text that could easily be removed from the article, and has a promotional bend.

Ikeda promoted the Soka Gakkai as an institution promoting culture through his own personal initiatives, the Min-on Concert Association, and massive cultural performances. The emphasis on participatory culture underlies the idea that by improving oneself, one also improves the world. In 1971 Ikeda began publishing his poems including an ode to mothers entitled "Mother," the nature-themed "Pampas Grass," and "The People," a Whitmanesque tribute to the common person. Many of these poems were included in a 1978 volume translated by Burton Watson. His essays and addresses moved from doctrine to contemporary themes and using Western references. in the 1970's Ikeda claims he took up the hobby of photography.

Clearly, a single sentence would be more than is merited by the material as part of a "History" section, and the entire section could be retitled "Buddhism Humanism", but there seems to insufficient RS material on that, as the pro-SG editors have been challenged on the Talk page to produce it in the past when trying to assert that "Buddhism Humanism" was a doctrinal "belief" or the like. For that discussion on that one has to start with Archive 15.

In that section, called "Beliefs and Practices", because it addressed material being inserted into the corresponding section in the article, there was the following exchange.

1. Daveler16 asserts that I didn’t explain why I undid his edit, which implies he didn’t read the edit summary
2. I post excerpt of relevant passage in reply to Daveler16’s assertion
3. Daveler16 replies
4. I reply to Daveler16

So the insertion of the above-quoted passage and section seems to be an attempt at a workaround simply with the aim of ADVOCACY. The above-passage itself, which is part of a section that was created in its entirety by BrandenburgG over a period of a couple of days starting with this edit from January 17 is WP:UNDUE, and what might merit being included in the article should be integrated elsewhere, even in the preceding section, for example. I hope that this illustrates an aspect of the problematic.

This problematic relates to a conduct issues falling under WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, etc., and not a content dispute.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:33, 09:51 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to say "ugh" at that vacuous, almost meaningless and promotional passage, and if that is an example of what the WP:SPAs have been adding to the article, and if they are the cause of the mind-numbing length of the article, then I would support a WP:BOOMERANG to the filer(s) of this ANI, and some serious admin intervention and oversight of the article and the WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT editors and editing that are occuring there. I salute Ubikwit and Shii for having had the stamina to deal with it this long. It's time they got some support, especially admin support, whatever form that takes, which might include topic bans for the worst offenders. Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I learn something new. I just read about single purpose advocacy and I plead guilty. My focus on WP has been on SG-related articles. I see the need for generalized participation as an editor and I agree to abide. Through my participation editing I have come to see the significance and responsibility of editing and I want to promise a long-term commitment.

Secondly, I need to explain the rational for writing "that vacuous, almost meaningless and promotional passage." Two editors have advocated consistently for prominent use of the "C" (cult) word. There has been extensive discussion continuing with Ubikwit's posting above. But his sourcing is quite questionable and this was raised over and over again. He refused to budge on his position. Let's look at two of his sources Furukawa and Yanatomi. Such a serious charge--"cult of personality"--and all Ubikwit cites are two Japanese sources that no other editor can refute because of language barriers. Also, let me mention, one author's work is almost 30 years old!

He also refused to alter the citation of Macioti, a noted Italian sociologist, whose entire book explores the SG in depth and comes to the conclusion that it is not a cult. (page 124: "It should be clear to all by now that Soka Gakkai is not a "sect." It is not a small, two-faced cult, characterized by obscure and hidden agendas. Rather it is a movement that has given life to varied associations, all of which are engaged in promoting culture, and raising interest around the theme of values—and a movement that demands to be examined more closely by using scientific methodologies and instruments of evaluation.)

He also refused to budge on using the Lewis citation to somehow legitimate "brainwashing cult." Lewis write, "For over half a century, one of the most controversial new religions in Japan has been Soka Gakkai. Although this group has matured into a responsible member of society, its ongoing connection with reformist political activity served to keep it in the public eye. Until relatively recently, it also had a high profile as the result of sensationalist and often irresponsible media coverage. Apparently as a direct consequence of the social consensus against this religion, some scholars have felt free to pen harsh critiques of Soka Gakkai--critiques in which the goal of promoting understanding has been eclipsed by efforts to delegitimate Soka Gakkai by portraying it as deluded, wrong, and/or socially dangerous....Soka Gakkai also spread to the United States and Europe, where it aroused controversy as a result of its intense proselytizing activities. Although it was never as controversial as groups like the Hare Krishna Movement or the Unification Church, Sokka Gakkai—which in the United States went under the name Nichiren Shoshu of America after Soka Gakkai broke with Nichiren Shōshū—was not infrequently stereotyped as a brainwashing cult, particularly by anti-cult authors."

This is highly problematic and misleading. The entire Lewis chapter tries to delegitimate the SG as a cult. This is in fact the thrust of Lewis's work as an "anti-anti-cult" scholar. The one phrase Ubikwit holds on to is about the US and not Japan or worldwide. It is full of qualifications noted by Lewis.

So the opening paragraphs, which are all that many WP readers look at allege cult and brainwashing on the flimsiest of evidence.

My efforts as an editor of the "history" section have been to show that even if the movement had incidents of cult-like behavior in the 50's, by the 60's these had started to change. By the 70's there was a radical reassessment and swing toward a movement of "peace, culture, and education." Is this just promotionalism? I don't think so. I think it is essential given the serious charges of cultism. And if I show the peace, culture and education literature, don't I have to document it with sources.

So show me how to write it better instead of trying to cut off my hands. BrandenburgG (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think BrandenburgG's comments might be a little hard to follow if you don't know the history of the article, so I'll try to explain it a bit here. (1) The greatest source of friction in this article has been the term "brainwashing cult". If you scroll down the bottom of the same talk page as the exchange that Ubikwit quoted above, you'll find the section titled Brainwashing cult and James R. Lewis. That's where I make a 7-point argument for getting rid of it, as the most offensive term in the article and also one of the most dubiously sourced. The response, mainly from Ubikwit, is essentially WP:IDHT. If we're going to consider that a conduct issue here on AN/I, then we need to know that we have two sides here, both quite entrenched in their opinions, so WP:IDHT is going to happen. (2) About WP:ADVOCACY, please note how BrandenburgG framed it, as a reaction to the perceived POV in language like "brainwashing cult". If we can make progress on the language that provokes the reaction, then we can also make progress on the advocacy. BrandenburgG has indicated that he's aware of these issues now, so I think that they can be handled without topic bans or oversight. (3) As to whether Daveler16's contributions are WP:ADVOCACY or WP:NOTHERE, and generally about civility, I'd like to take another look at the exchange that Ubikwit quoted above. First, please look at our article on Buddhist humanism. You'll see that this term has considerable currency in the literature. It's not nonsense, by any means. But nonsense is what Ubikwit calls it – twice, once in his edit summary and once in the exchange on the talk page. It's an aggressive and confrontational style of arguing. It's not impossible to deal with, but it does generate a lot of heat. So what this suggests to me is (one) that Daveler16 is not engaged in any egregious special pleading or untoward WP:ADVOCACY in that passage, and (two) that everyone needs to calm down, be polite, and listen to what the other side has to say. Let's try that first, before talking about boomerangs and topic bans. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The post by Margin1522 requires this to be taken even further back into August of 2014.

In the same Talk page archive to which Margin1522 refers, there is a thread preceding the one Maring1522 referenced that addresses the use of “brainwashing cult”, but I guess that Margin1522 didn't read that.

response to inactive SPA (2 NRUs) FetullahFan that they take it to RS/N

With respect to Margin1522 attempts to dismiss RS based on its publication thirty years ago, see the following comment, which was made prior to Margin1522’s comment in the aforementioned preceding thread.

replied that date of Yanatori publication was largely irrelevant regarding attempts to dismiss it

I subsequently acquired both the books by Furukawa and Yanatori in Japanese, and posted the relevant portions on the Talk page here

Margin1522, who also can read Japanese, responded somewhat glibly with basically dismissive comments referring to “hyperbolic language”, and goes so far as to misrepresent what Yanatori says regarding Ikeda's encounter with Zhou Enlai (Yanatori basically relates the opportunistic photo op, etc., as having been used in SG educational/recruitment material for brainwashing purposes (i.e., for inculcating adulation for Ikeda in the minds of SG adherents)) here.

In short, with respect to the "brainwashing cult" characterization, as the current lead shows, there are at least 7 cited sources, including English and Japanese from the 1960s and 1970s. Obviously that represents a notable POV that must be represented in the article according to WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT.
--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:38, 19:11 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel inferiority here as a newcomer, I see a steep learning curve about WP terms. Albeit, I think Margin1522 frames my opinion well. The "brainwashing cult" accusation in the opening paragraphs is harsh and insulting. It is a nuclear option given that the entire science about "brainwashing" has been discredited (see "https://en.wikipedia.org/Mind_control#Legal_issues.2C_the_APA_and_DIMPAC" for a start) and that the references are so skimpy. Ubikwit, perhaps you and Margin1522 can read Japanese, but 99% of we WP editors on the English site can't. Your source belongs on the Japanese WP page where it can be fully vented and analyzed for accuracy.

I want to address Shii now. I have had several candid interchanges with you on Talk pages. I respect your dedication and neutrality. I have always given careful consideration to every one of your suggestions and I think I have followed through each time. If you felt I was too OCD, I believe a mention of it would have served me well. Further, when there was a lot of debate on the opening paragraphs--and I think this was right around the time I started editing--you were the one who gave wise counsel to start with the article and then return to the opening paragraphs. I've been merrily doing that ever since and I should have been cautioned that I was going too fast. As a lead editor I feel that was your responsibility to do so then and there instead of publicly questioning my sincerity on this administrator's noticeboard.

That's all I want to say for now. BrandenburgG (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

BrandennburgG (talk · contribs) If you feel that RS characterizations of the Soka Gakkai being a "brainwashing cult" are "harsh and insulting", perhaps your emotional attachment to the subject prevents you from editing in an objective manner according to Misplaced Pages's content policies.

I'm fairly certain that you have been warned about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH on the Talk page, but you appear not to have read the relevant policies/guidelines. That is evident from your assertion above about "the entire science about brainwashing" being discredited. That is not an acceptable manner in which to attempt to dismiss reliable sources.

While I don't have a problem with editors trying to add balancing material demonstrating positive aspects of SG, that must be done in a manner according to the relevant content policies. Moreover, ADVOCACY is prohibited, and there have been numerous warnings on the Talk page regarding advocacy and promotional material.

I think that you and Daveler16 need a long break from editing in this topic area.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Margin1522: Your statement at the beginning of your "7-point refutation" bears quoting here

On the question of whether to take this to the WP:RS/N notice board, I don’t think that’s the right place for it. Lewis uses the word "stereotyped", so I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't agree with this idea. But the dispute here is about whether reliable sources are being used responsibly, and that's not what WP:RS/N is about. Personally I don't think "brainwashing cult" belongs in the article at all, much less the lead.

As pointed out above with respect to your addressing of other issues, you appear to adopt a strategy of side-stepping facts in order to promote a POV not in accord with the sources. The simple fact here is that there are a total of 7 sources cited for the statements in the lead. I don't see where your attempts to dismiss any of them is based on policy. In fact, your statement that

"Personally I don't think "brainwashing cult" "belongs in the article at all"

sums up your emotionally biased predisposition toward the sources.

Like Daveler16 and BrandenburgG, it is obvious that you have an emotional attachment to the subject, and probably should abstain from editing it. Since you can't seem to resist the temptation to do so, maybe a mandatory break would be in order.
--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Another Break

This is, actually, about conduct; but I think content disputes explain the conduct and that's why so much has been written about content. For instance, the Lewis book says, essentially, "SG gas been accused of being a cult, but it is not" - but then is cited to support "SG has been accused of being a cult". Similarly, an L.A. Times article evaluates both sides of the Ikeda-as-cult-leader question, and actually contains these words from a religious scholar : "He is not a cult leader". But an editor made a choice about which argument to cite that article to support, and again, it was "It's a cult". This indicates an advocacy, or at least a prejudice that colors the eidting.

So to the matter at hand. Since August there have been 6 sub sections on the Talk page concerning "Beliefs and Practices" Here are some excerpts: ]; Suggestion is first made, Catflap08 and I have a discussion about, and the only time Ubikwit's name appears is when it's noted that he reverted with no discussion. Later, he writes: "The reasons were explained in the edit summary".

Edit summaries are not really conducive to discussion. Also, by definitiion, they do not precede the revert, as discussions of reverts are supposed to do.

Later in that thread, I note that Ubikwit, on the one hand, supports the Lewis reference Mentioned above to affirm what it actually refutes, but does not think a statement about SG practices he does not like can be used to explain that practice. Again - evidence of bias, evidence, perhaps, of an agenda.

]: Administrator Shii wrote: “One way to address Daveler's concern could be to move the "history" section lower in the article, which might coincide with a larger rewrite. Up until the rewrite began I understood SG to be the result of a fierce split with NS. I now understand that post-1991, SGI thinks of its history primarily in terms of its three leaders, and its relationship with NS is something that is in the background and not as important to self-presentation (since SG was always keeping the faith when NS supposedly lost it). Accordingly, the messy "beliefs & practices" section should be rewritten to explain why people come to SG and the message it gives to its members.”

The next day he wrote: “There is no need to be so petty about this. First, I have already said, simply elaborating Misplaced Pages policy, that SGI sources are acceptable for self-description of religious views. They are not acceptable to define the narrative of SGI's history; we do not allow any religious group to determine history." I should point out that no one (to my knowledge) was trying to use SG sources in the History sub section. But there was objection to allowing SG to define its own doctrine. I think this is resolved, but, again - bias displayed against SG.

On October 20 Ubikwit was told: Let's not be overly historicist. If the major question people ask about SGI members is "what do they believe today?" then the answers to that should reasonably come first. Shii (tock) 23:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And Margin1522 wrote, on another but related topic: “I also think the article is better than it used to be, and that we can start thinking about removing the neutrality tag. The obvious thing that still needs to be done is the words that some readers find offensive, especially "brainwashing" and "cult". There is no difference between "Ikeda-centric ethos" and "cult of personality", except that one is an insult and one isn't. Not that we can't mention this language, but we need to make it clear that this is language used by SG's enemies, whatever their agenda may be, and that it isn't endorsed one way or the other by Misplaced Pages. That in itself will make it less offensive and less likely to trigger allergic reactions."

Margin and I duscuss: He says "In principle I'm not opposed to having this section first. But the way it is written now presumes that a lot of information has already been introduced. The first sentence is "Until the 1991 split with the Nichiren Shōshū, Sōka Gakkai existed within the Shōshū framework as a hokkeko, a form of lay organization." None of that has been introduced yet. If we are going to go this way, I think we had better start with a summary of the basic tenets of Nichiren Buddhism and only then introduce what is specific to SG."

To which I reply "You're right" and say I'm undertaking that task. And after I do, there is this exchange: Margin 1522: "Well. You didn't get a chance to rewrite that paragraph, did you? I must say, you've displayed admirable patience through all this. As for me I'll leave it for another day. Better not to write in anger. – Margin1522 (talk)" Me: "Easily fixed. I see that, once again, for the umpteenth time, a major change is made without discussing it.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2014"

To summarize all this: As you can see, I'm not the only one who thinks it's a mistake to portray SG beliefs through the lens of another sect, and to bury that sub section after History. You can see also that there seems to be a rather strenuous effort to prevent this from happening, and in general to keep the entry negative.

A number of solutions have been suggested. May I add another? The "Beliefs and Practices" secti0on of the Soka Gakkai entry should be written to reflect the beliefs and practices of the Soka Gakkai, not of another sect, as they are now and have been for years. Then, let Ubikwit edit what I (or someone else) may write on that basis - not on the basis of reverting, or inserting the views of another sect. As I (and others) have found academic sources - of recent vintage, not the 60s - to verify the independence of SG doctrine, Ubikwit could find recent academic sources to argue that SG beliefs are derivative of Niichiren Shoshu - if that's what he wants to do. That would be so much better than merely reverting, and could (and should) lend itslef to productive discussion that will vastly improve the Soka Gakkai entry. --Daveler16 (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I'm not sure why Shii (talk · contribs) made those comments, the actual diff of which is this as they seemed somewhat out of bounds, particularly the point about only recounting the SG's beliefs as per the SG since 1991, presumably ignoring the history from 1930 to 1991. Misplaced Pages is not primarily concerned with how SG conducts its "sellf-presentation. Misplaced Pages has policies/guidelines including WP:Primary etc., that pertain to the use of primary sources. In fact, Shii goes on to say

  For example, here's a really dumb question: the five concepts on this page seem to be key to SG's social message, but none of them are on this Misplaced Pages page. Has anyone seen a source out there that explains this? It would be way better to start the article with this religious message than with the history of the group.

The fact that the so-called "five concepts" and details about the writings of any of the leaders are missing from the article is a glaring flaw indeed, but I found Shii's statement about starting the article with the self-presentation of the "religious message" of the group to be highly unusual. And I will point out that Shii never objected to the reversions of the refactoring, nor was there any collaborative rewrite.

His comment was also way out of character considering the email he sent me on August 19, 2014, which I am prepared to post here (assuming, that is, that doing so wouldn't violate policy) or in a provide to Arbcom, whichever is appropriate. As an "Admin", one would expect Shii to be a little more circumspect and not to make statements on sourcing that appear to be prejudicial and possible contravening WP:RS as well as WP:NPOV.

My sole comment in that thread, in reply, has remained consistent.

That would not be encyclopedic, and Misplaced Pages is not intended to serve the aims of proselytizing for religious organizations. Furthermore, the beliefs and practices have developed over time.

So, Shii, what have you got to say in response to these questions? You've been fairly quite during this discussion, with the possible exception of opposing BOOMERANG.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the issue here is not an NPOV one but simply about which subject heading serves readers more. There isn't a policy about whether history is more important than ideology, or what should come first in article sections. BTW, I won't be voting in these proposed resolutions unless if more than one uninvolved admin weighs in on this whole thing. Shii (tock) 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue of "which subject heading serves readers more" is likely something that should be determined according to the prominence of views in reliable secondary sources. With a group as controversial as SG, and with a history that is obviously intimately connected to the controversy as well as the beliefs and practices, the issue should be relatively straightforward. It has nothing to do with how the SG decided it should conduct its "self-presentation" starting in 1991, though that in and of itself is a part of the groups history.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alas for this POV, there are a large number of religious studies sources (currently being added to the article by BrandenburgG) that describe SGI as a primarily new, present-day phenomenon where beliefs and practices are more important than history. Now, I view this as scholarly approach being irresponsible, in slightly the same way that pre-1995 scholarly support for Aum Shinrikyo was irresponsible, but my POV doesn't matter Shii (tock) 19:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alas? Did you just say, "Alsas"? Give me a breask. There are several holes in your reply.

First, any new sources that have been added were not there when you made the above-quoted comments in September.

Second, Those sources have not been evaluated.

Thirdly, as you point out, the sources relate to SGI (Soka Gakkai International), not Soka Gakkai.

Why haven't you mentioned the email you sent me in August? Do you think doing so will make it go away? Mr. Harvard Admin?

I'd advise you to measure your statements carefully, because this is going to Arbcom, and you're already sunk.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@ ShiiHold on – define the term “new”. Japanese new religions? Definitely one of them. Where in the time line you set “new”? SGI dates back to the 1930’s so there is quite a bit of history. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

To recap, there has been continual and unabated ADVOCACY through the insertion of promotional text and attempts at whitewashing any RS material critical of the SG or its leaders. The pro SG editors have consistently refused to engage in processes such as taking sourcing related questions to RS/N. Instead it can be seen with respect to two issues that they exhibit the same pattern of editing conduct repeatedly: first, there is the attempt to perform a major refactoring of the article against consensus and on the sly; and second, there is the attempt to promote SG as a promoter of "Buddhist Humanism" as a belief or practice without any concrete sourcing and in a manner that violates WP:ADVOCACY. There is also the third point about the two iterations of "cult" used to describe the Soka Gakkai by various sources. I take that to be a sourcing issue, and that the POV in both cases ("brainwashing cult" and "cult of personality") is self-evidently a POV that needs to be in the article based on the sources. Though the mention of those points is not made in an UNDUE manner, there have been continuous attempts to whitewash it and a refusal to take sources to RS/N. I would go so far as to suggest that the above-quoted promotional text posted by BrandenburgG itself demonstrates the type of adulation for Ikeda that is representative of the cult of personality surrounding Ikeda discussed by the sources, but this is not something that BrandenburgG has been able to recognize.

I'd like to suggest a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban for Daveler16, and also for BrandenburgG, the main offenders. While Margin1522's disposition doesn't reflect a willingness to engage processes like RS/N, for example, at least he has not tried to flood the article itself with promotional material, so I will forego suggesting a topic ban for Margin1522.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I escaped nomination because my work on the article itself has mainly been confined to busywork in the footnotes. About RS/N, sure. This might be difficult for the other editors since two of the books are in Japanese. But if it would help I would be happy to translate the two passages that you were good enough to post, and we could see whether third-party editors consider those to be reliable sources. Lewis I think is an interesting case. When an academic quotes strongly POV sources, to what extent do we need to include the academic's own analysis and conclusions? That's a question that should be settled if it hasn't been already. (Note: these are all sources for "brainwashing cult".) – Margin1522 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No need to thank me. The purpose is to halt the disruption to Misplaced Pages caused by the promotional conduct, which violates numerous policies, as described in this thread.

The two Japanese sources are undoubtedly reliable sources, as they are by well-known authors, both investigative journalists, etc. They are both used on the Japanese Misplaced Pages article as well. Regarding Lewis, etc., that should have been taken to RS/N long ago, before FettulahFan disappeared.

Mind you that I would imagine there are other Japanese sources for the "brainwashing cult" description, but I haven't bothered to look--or even read the Japanese Misplaced Pages article (I just confirmed that Furukawa and Yanatori are used there). You have to realize that the writers in English that address the issue are picking it up from somewhere, and that somewhere is most likely Japanese texts. It is not clear that some of the authors writing in English are actually writing about SG as much as SGI, which probably encompasses the scope of their exposure.

At any rate, this is a Talk page discussion, not AN/I.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again I have to Ubikwit on his poor behavior. He sidesteps every point I make and then excoriates me on being an unworthy editor for other reasons. He refuses to acknowledge my charges that cult and brainwashing are extremely serious allegations (especially in opening paragraphs!) and should be substantiated by qualified sources. In order to move forward nothing else should be discussed right now besides the quality of the four sources used to substantiate the allegation: Lewis, Macioti, Furukawa, and Yanatori. A clip of Lewis was used to substantiate "cult" even though the entirety of his statement disproves that fact. A clip of Macioti was used to substantiate "brainwashing" even though the entirety of her book disproves that fact. Given the extensive literature on the SG the use of Furukawa and Yanatori is insufficient to justify a claim of brainstorming. I repeat, use them in the Japanese Misplaced Pages article where they can be publicly vetted; to substantiate this claim Ubikwit should be charged with finding other sources.

I feel bullied by Ubikwit. WP should be a safe place to work. I am making a very precise claim about sources and he responds to viciously attacking my capability to serve as an editor. To me this is killing the messenger because he doesn't like the message. BrandenburgG (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic bans proposed for Daveler16 and BrandenburgG

Indefinite topic ban for Daveler16 from all articles related to the Soak Gakkai

• Support As proposer.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The above discussion is too long and difficult to read. I won't support a topic ban based on walls of text. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: It is that. The incidents have there origins back in August, and are at least threefold. For an easy to grasp dimension of the problem, please read the comment in which the ce represented by this diff occurs.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. May need topic bans for (possibly all) other SPAs as well. I also recommend SPIs be filed against all the apparent sockpuppets (not saying they are his sockpuppets, but sockpuppets of each other) involved in editing the article. Possibly also a page semi-protection. And also reverting the page to a version before all the SPA POV bloat got added in. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite topic ban for BrandenburgG from all articles related to the Soak Gakkai

• Support As proposer.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The above discussion is too long and difficult to read. I won't support a topic ban based on walls of text. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. May need topic bans for (possibly all) other SPAs as well. I also recommend SPIs be filed against all the apparent sockpuppets (not saying they are his sockpuppets, but sockpuppets of each other) involved in editing the article. Possibly also a page semi-protection. And also reverting the page to a version before all the SPA POV bloat got added in. May need topic bans for other (possibly all) SPAs as well. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• No longer necessary - BrandenburgG has recused himself from the article. Shii (tock) 23:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Although I have recused myself from this article, let me point out procedural problems. I think they are important because I believe WP would want to narrow the gap between new editors and more experienced ones. In my case I never heard of Single Purpose Advocacy. Yes, there were discussions about advocacy and biases but they were among a million words, some threatening, that were going back-and-forth. I don't recall WP:SPA came up on talk pages. And I did not receive warnings from the page's administrator that my editorial privileges could be revoked for my behavior and what this all entails. Therefore there was no chance to reflect and/or learn. I received only one warning from Catflap08 that I was editing too quickly and I quickly responded and agreed to slow down.

Regardless of the outcome my situation, I think senior editors should take more time, care, and patience in pointing out to junior editors how things work here. Otherwise there will be collateral damage: well-meaning editors who sincerely want to learn and grow will get pushed under the bus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandenburgG (talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if the topic ban will be of much use, the process to investigate sock puppetry is not an easy one either. In both cases the effects may only be temporarily. I would prefer WP:PCPP--Catflap08 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The fact that I am now on trial is ominous and Kafka-esque. I have worked hard and sincerely to create a BALANCED article. As a new editor I have shown a capability to grow whenever my faults have been shown. I cannot express myself yet through WP:THIS or WP:THAT so I have to use plain language. In casting your votes please answer the following Yes/No questions: ·The article before my entrance was seriously flawed and unbalance. YES/NO ·Since my arrival the article's balance has improved to the point that administrators removed it "article in dispute" categorization. YES/NO ·The description of an organization as "brainwashing cult" is serious and should merit the highest sourcing. YES/NO ·The four sources listed (Lewis, Macioti, and the two Japanese sources) were being seriously misused or are not accessible to English readers. YES/NO ·Ubikwit has been unprincipled and unrelenting on this matter. Furthermore he has sidestepped this specific issue whenever it has been raised (including right here) YES/NO ·All of my postings have been backed by highly regarded sources. YES/NO ·Bias is OK as long as it is controlled (i.e., Catholics can edit articles on Catholicism, Muslims on Islam, etc.) YES/NO ·WP readers right to a balanced article supersedes all other charges if an editor demonstrates an ability to grow. YES/NO

Therefore I am proposing that my rights to edit continue.

Is this real? I know it might take an entire weekend to read this whole thing, but I would like to hear from an administrator who has done so. Did I suggest a ban on Ubikwit? I don't think I did, and that is certainly not my intention. When did Brandenberg? I just want a stop to his disruptive editing. He has evidently chosen a very aggressive response, which does not involve any serious attempt to understand the problem, or to suggest a solution other than "my was or the highway".

I just posted on the SG Talk Page that other editors might want to check out this discussion, but now I regret doing so: is anyone who may think the SG entry is being kept deliberately negative going to be "banned"? If anyone disagrees with U*bukwit, is there going to be a "vote" on whether or not they can edit any more? Could we return to civility and try to solve the original problem?--Daveler16 (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Before everybody bans each other from editing. Why not close the article yet again for a period of one month? The most problematic issue here is that we do have editors working on the article that are adherents of SGI. I keep my own editing on the two, in my opinion, most problematic SGI related articles to a bare minimum – unless certain tendencies resurface to whitewash certain critical issues or discredit sources. It should also become policy that only registered editors, no novices and IP’s, should be able to edit the article. This would be a measure bearing fruit only in the future though. In the end the only solution is to raise certain protection levels indefinitely and have the article(s) more closely watched by admins. Yet again I have to repeat something I have been saying for years now – the fierceness with which editors with a more or less close affiliation to SGI agitate reaffirms some critics who say that SGI cannot take criticism full stop. I cannot see how the article is overly critical of SGI --- even the criticism section was binned by someone. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08's proposal is not a terrible idea (though a shorter period seems more appealing to me). However, editors have to face that there is such a thing as "negative advocacy", and that certain editors are guilty of it. I have seen no effort - none - to purge the history of criticism from the article. All I have seen (and done myself) are efforts to restore balance. It is that - saying something, anything that is in any way positive, or that cancels out the criticism - as "advocating" and "promotion". It only appears that way to you if you are advocating the other way - for negativity. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I sometimes get the impression that some believe the article is only balanced when criticism is absent. I do longer want to go on about that … but rather see an admin closing the article. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:BrandenburgG: Please go to the Special:Preferences page and fill in an email. Shii (tock) 20:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shii Have you just made public my email address to logged in users?--Catflap08 (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't be able to do that if I wanted to. Not sure what you mean. I just want to contact BrandenburgG privately about the tone of his posts on this ANI page. Shii (tock) 20:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to apologize for some rash behavior. I just withdrew my request regarding Ubikwit. I was overly and needlessly emotional. Thank you to Catflap for coming up with some positive ideas.BrandenburgG (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08: I have no idea who may have advocated all mention of criticism being "absent" before the article is balanced. Meanwhile, I'm going to heed Shii's advice below, and hie myself to the Talk page. --Daveler16 (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This is completely absurd

This is an article with few editors, all of whom are familiar with what collaboration means. Indeed, if you look at the talk page right this second, you will see there is very little disputation going on there at all, and a lot of good-faith collaboration. Most of the arguing at this point has started because this ANI was posted. It is exasperating to hear threats to raise this to Arbcom; it's like threatening to call the police when your kids argue with you. Let's use the talk page first and discuss specific issues for the article moving forward. Shii (tock) 20:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree the conflict within this article fills the respective archive(s). I have been around for quite a few years and due to my own former affiliation with Soka Gakkai have stayed clear to edit the article, and the one on Daisaku Ikeda, too much. I was always clear of that and now and again since we are as you said dealing with an “article with few editors”, I would actually like to know who is an adherent of SGI – funny enough quite a few editors have been silent about that. And as soon some fall silent other appears out of nowhere – focused on SGI and Ikeda. There is one guiding motive in the article in the last past moths and years – get rid of critical remarks and if unsuccessful negate the integrity of sources being critical. This worries me big time – and no I did not file this to Arbcom.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

But the question is, have other methods of dispute resolution failed? I say no. If everyone will agree to allow each other to edit, I think there are some big questions to look at which can be resolved in an open RfC. Shii (tock) 21:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Active SGI adherents will gain the upper hand on the article and if that is Misplaced Pages’s purpose so be it. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Good grief. I thought we were editing - didn't realize it was an "upper hand" proposition. I like Shii's comments, ad will be seen next back on the Talk page. I started this is hopes of putting an end to disruptive editing and reversions; I had no idea it would turn into a book length jumble. I still hope that we can get a resolution, that I be allowed to edit as research leads me (and of course the same for everyone) and that consensus will be honored.--Daveler16 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing can occur from various angles. It may result in an article that is promotional and there are clear guidelines on that. Please also note WP:SPA --Catflap08 (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies and self-reflection

I want to apologize for my lengthy and sometimes angry words on this board. I wish I could say that I acted with rashness because of my ignorance about dispute boards. Unfortunately, I've been dealing with the same self-victimization and anger issues in my entire non-virtual life. I'm aware of it and keep chipping away. I think I should do here what I do in real life: apologize, back-off, and self-reflect. In real life such action has helped me repair and usually strengthen relationships.

Therefore I have decided to not edit the article for a month or two. (On occasion I might drop a word or two in on the talk page.) As I had promised I will also involve myself in helping other articles, thereby learning more about WP processes. If you have any suggestions for WP volunteer work I could do, please let me know.

I wish the remaining editors my best. Overall I think we have done important work and I respect everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandenburgG (talk • contribs) 13:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Request template namespace topic ban for Sardanaphalus

I have been increasingly concerned about Sardanaphalus (talk · contribs)'s template editing lately. His template editing was recently mentioned in an ANI thread, after which I removed his template editor right. However, I've found that the problems aren't limited to protected templates. While most of his template edits are fine, a significant minority have problems, and given Sardanaphalus's fast rate of editing and tendency to not get consensus on template talk pages, this has resulted in quite a large build-up of templates that need to be fixed. I have noticed the following patterns in Sardanaphalus's template editing:

• Logic errors and bad parameter names that could have been spotted with better testing. For example, a wrong parameter name at infobox company and a missing includeonly tag in infobox shopping mall.
• Creation of template redirects and large-scale editing of articles to use the redirect name, bypassing the requested move process. (This is the matter that was discussed in the previous ANI thread.)
• Formatting errors, making text or tables bunched up or unreadable.
• Creation of unnecessary template forks, for example Template:Semisub (TfD) and Template:End&startflatlist (TfD).
• Adding unnecessary subtemplates and parameters to templates. This makes processing templates slower, which in turn increases the time taken to save pages. For example, see this edit to Template:Collapsible option, the corresponding edits to Template:Mono, and several additions of the {{{1}}} parameter to navboxes to use the parameters added to Collapsible option. Sometimes increases in complexity are fine, but I'm concerned that this is being done on a large scale without any discussion.
• Changing the function of parameters based on other parameters in the template, e.g. and the edits to Template:Mono linked above. Once such a parameter scheme is added, it is hard to fix, as you need to go through every transclusion of a template and check that it doesn't use the new scheme, or add a special tracking category to find the transclusions that need changing. Again, schemes like this can be useful sometimes, but Sardanaphalus tends to add them without discussion in places where they aren't needed.

All of this wouldn't be such a problem if Sardanaphalus took on board advice he was given after problems with his template editing were brought up. However, he tends to revert rather than using the talk page, and sometimes resorts to edit warring to keep his changes in templates. Most importantly, advice on his talk page doesn't seem to have resulted in any change of behaviour. For example, after this thread that I started on his talk page last week, he is still making edits with the exact same problems. I don't see much improvement after other recent threads either, and I see quite a few complaints going back in his talk page history.

I'd like to propose a topic ban from the template namespace for Sardanaphalus, to prevent further bad template edits and to allow us to start cleaning up the old edits without having to worry about cleaning up new edits at the same time. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I had noticed that Sardanaphalus has the wrong approach to editing templates before this report. A minor example is seen in the history at Template:Hegelianism where Sardanaphalus is editing the live template as if it were a contentious article which requires edit warring and pointy edit summaries to overcome POV pushers. Bold editing is one thing, but templates really do require care and collaboration. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Sardanaphalus can seem quite productive, but he has trouble collaborating. He has very strong ideas about how things should be done and as such, he doesn't take ctiticism very well. That makes it very hard to fix his mistakes. When he does acknowledge an (obvious) error, he will often revert to his own established methods. His layout always based to fit on his own screen (1680 wide), and in such a way that it becomes illegible on smaller screens. He uses and creates templates like {{!-!}} and {{!-!!}} that are completely redundant to wikimarkup and make table/template editing exponentially harder, yet at the same time acuses experienced template editors of "thinking like progrmammers". I would be a good thing if Sardanaphalus would experience Misplaced Pages more as a reader... on small screens. Or at the least, he could do with some coaching. -- ] {{talk}} 09:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Please take a look at User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 24#Template:Aquarium. Not too long ago, I reverted an edit by Sardanaphalus at that template, and they reached out to me at my user talk, and our subsequent discussion was very collaborative and improved the template. As a single anecdote, it seems to me to be contrary to what I'm reading here. I do however recognize that Sardanaphalus does an awful lot of template editing and that this is something where consensus is very important. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • He used to inquire about my reverts, and I would answer best I could, even though he should have brought up any issue on their respective template talk pages instead. However, any advice I give him is simply ignored or very soon forgoten. -- ] {{talk}} 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Sardanaphalus has a habit of reformatting template code in such a manner that makes comparison by diff very difficult. Consider this edit from earlier today: the effective change is the addition of two {{{colheaderstyle|}}} but whilst the first of those is obvious, the second is disguised by the newline wrapped in <!-- --> markers which makes it look like some code has been removed and some very different code has been added. It has reached the point where I have refused to process their protected edit requests because it is so difficult to determine if their desired "minor" change truly is minor. More at Template talk:Shortcut#Protected edit request on 4 December 2014, Template talk:Information#Navbox version and Template talk:Div col#Code layout. They also nag me for not processing edits that I disagree with, see User talk:Redrose64#Template:Information, User talk:MSGJ#Advice, please..? and (by proxy) User talk:Edokter#Template talk:Div col. Sometimes it seems that a strange effect somewhere is the result of a Sardanaphalus edit - but it takes some time to trace it, see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Linebreaks in infoboxes. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You may also note from today's editing that his use of the sandbox is not very effective; he seemingly moves every edit to the live template immediately, negating the purpose of the sandbox. If the transclusion count is high, this will unnecessarily strain the job queue, and in cases where he does not use the sandbox at all, may introduce disruptive errors on live articles. -- ] {{talk}} 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Sardanaphalus has asked some questions at both my user talk page and Mr. Stradivarius' talk page, and I would prefer that no final decision be made here until Sardanaphalus has responded here at ANI. At the moment, I'm neutral about the ban proposal, pending what I might hear subsequently. One possibility that I think we might want to put on the table is a topic ban from editing templates, but not from editing template talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  I agree that editing the template talk namespace should be allowed. Thinking about it, I would extend that to allowing the editing of template sandboxes as well, as without editing template sandboxes it is hard to make effective template edit requests. I'm also wondering whether editing /doc pages in the template namespace should be allowed, but I note that there has been some controversy about Sardanaphalus's editing there; see this section on his talk page, for example. — Mr. Stradivarius 23:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  I looked at that discussion you linked to, and before I say what I think, I had better stipulate that I'm mostly ignorant about the technicalities being discussed there. However, just as a matter of two editors communicating with one another, I'm not seeing anything that bad about the way that Sardanaphalus replied to Edokter. After reading Edokter's reply to my first post just above, I wondered why the two of us had had such differing experiences, and it now seems to me that it takes two to tango. Anyway, I'm receptive to a more limited ban that prevents editing templates and template documentation, but permits template talk page edits and edits of draft templates in sandbox space – but above all, I'm eager to hear back from Sardanaphalus. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  I should clarify that I never intended my proposed topic ban to include the template talk namespace - while it's related to the template namespace, technically it is not a part of it. Regarding Edokter, I agree that he could have handled that interaction better. I have noticed Edokter becoming increasingly frustrated with Sardanaphalus over the last few months, and this frustration is clearly evident in his recent interactions with him. It is not surprising to me that Sardanaphalus has reacted negatively to Edokter's complaints. However, Edokter is very knowledgeable about MediaWiki technical matters (much more than I am), and the technical points that he has brought up in discussions with Sardanaphalus are sound. I would say that his frustration is a symptom, rather than the cause. — Mr. Stradivarius 00:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)Template:Cue I've had concerns about this user's ability to edit templates for some time as well but would only support a topic ban if the following is considered: I've seen some of their edits to templates, and they certainly have the logical ability to figure out how to properly do it and only lack the patience of making sure that it is right in the sandbox and making sure the changes are what the community wants in cases where a change might be objected to. As many may know, I've had issues and struggled with some of these things myself in the past and some would argue on my behalf that I have grown from them. Telling this user they can't talk about templates at all may very well drive a capable editor away, and that's harmful to the encyclopedia. I'd suggest that the closer of this discussion consider allowing Sardanaphalus the option of obtaining a mentor that is knowledgeable in templates and code and willing to be a middleman / filter for Sardanaphalus' ideas and changes. I'm fairly certain that the community would not see me fit for the job, and I respect that opinion despite not entirely agreeing with it, but I ask they give him a chance to find a mentor that is suitable to the community if he wishes to not be entirely topic banned from templates. Thank you for hearing me. — {{U|Technical 13}} 21:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Now I say this with some regret. I am convinced Sardanaphalus is a good faith editor with intelligence and technical knowledge. But I am also convinced that he is sloppy in his work, has difficulty collaborating, and has technical blindspots, particularly with resolution. While I support this TBAN I would like the following provisos to be considered: to only be restricted from templates not created by him, to have no restrictions to template talk or sandboxes, and to be allowed to collaborate with Technical 13 to suggest changes which are then carried out by Technical 13. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Working toward an alternative outcome

Hello. I have been trying to work out a promising way to contribute to this thread, so I apologise if this initial post appears belated. Mr. Stradivarius endorsed the idea that linking/copying the conversation I started on his talkpage should be a good first step, so, with the exception of its Template:Tnfs, I've quoted it below. Thoughts, please..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

== Request ==

Regarding your proposal: Though I've found a certain amount of information about this situation, I've yet to divine or find advice as regards what's considered an effective way for the... indictee? to proceed. I'd appreciate, therefore, your advice/assistance.

Sincerely,
Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As Tryptofish advised you, you should post a comment at the ANI thread. If you don't comment there, it will probably lower other editors' opinions of how well you collaborate with others. For things to go as well as possible, you need to a) show that you understand what the complaints about you are, b) accept responsibility for the issues brought up that are your fault (apologising helps here), and c) show that you are committed to improving your actions in the areas that you accept responsibility for (an action plan will help here). Though I started the thread about you, I don't actually want to see you topic banned if it can be avoided. I started the thread because I thought that a topic ban might be the only way to get you to change your behaviour after you seemingly ignored advice from myself and others. Perhaps this is all just a communication problem and can be sorted out through discussion - if that's the case, then so much the better. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for this message. In short: yes, I feel there's been an accumulation of misunderstandings, misinterpretations and unfinished conversations, some of which<aside>perhaps many of which</aside> have been prompted, I think, because of my attempts to take advice on board. I'm heartened to read that you don't want to see me topic (namespace?)-banned if it can be avoided; this is what the question at the end of a follow-up to the above that I'd been drafting had addressed ("...is there any kind of outcome other than the one proposed that you'd prefer to see / like to see..?").

Do you think, therefore, that linking and/or copying the contents of this thread to the ANI thread<aside>to see if/how anyone following it responds</aside> is a good initial post for me to make there..?

With my thanks again, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

PS Despite, for instance, LT910001's own userpage, this may also be timely.

Yes, I think that linking to this conversation as part of your initial post would be a good idea. You should also try and address my points a, b and c above. But you shouldn't make the post too long - the thread will go smoothest if it is a conversation rather than a series of walls of text. Also, you should comment there soon, preferably today - the longer you leave it, the more it looks to other editors like you are ignoring the thread. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm required elsewhere for a while now, so will make the post sometime later today. Thanks for your confirmation. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There's really nothing for the rest of us to add here. What is needed is for you to say whatever you are going to say. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not confident about what's best for that to be. Given Mr. Stradivarius's points (a) to (c) above, I'm thinking I should work through what's been said in the main part of this thread in order to demonstrate, I suppose, that I don't "understand what the complaints about are"<aside>more accurately, to demonstrate that I feel their basis isn't as clear-cut or perhaps as well-founded as it may otherwise seem</aside> but I think that's likely to generate one of these "walls of text"...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The general sense I get from this comment is that, in essense, you do not agree with the complaints. In other words, you feel you are doing nothing wrong. That is unfortunate, because that may indicates there is no intent to change on your part. What we are asking of you is to adhere to some basic principles that we expect from anyone editing Misplaced Pages. One of these principles is to take advice from others instead of fighting them and perceiving criticism on your edits as personal attacks. You have been given lots of advice on technical matters, but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears, as you generally do not show any change in editing. Also, if you feel you need a 'wall of text' to address these complaints, that is also not a good sign. So at this point I think a topic ban on Template:-space (meaning live templates only, not including template talk pages, /sandbox and /testcases pages), combined with some other technical restrictions, and coaching, is what is needed to improve the quality of your edits. Accepting a coach would be the only way to lift this ban in the future. Before deciding this, we'd like to hear your view (as concise as possible) on these complaints on your edits. I emphasized "edits" because I want to stress we are not discussing you as a person. -- ] {{talk}} 16:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive/trolling account Cyntiamaspian

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

Cyntiamaspian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making multiple unsourced edits to a variety of articles. I first noticed the user's edits on List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita . They seem to be valid edits, but looking at the diffs closely shows the implausible rise of Indonesia's GDP per capita from $3,509 to $80,000 in a year! Because of their subtleness, the disruptive edits stood uncorrected for almost a month. And that's not an isolated incident. The user's talk page is littered with warnings from at least a dozen editors.

Recently, the user's behaviour has turned even stranger, posting a false vandalism warning on User talk:ClueBot Commons , impersonating an administrator and adding fake protection templates on User:Adamdaley and User:EoRdE6 , which was reverted by Yngvadottir. At least four people asked Cyntiamaspian for explanation, with no reply. See User_talk:Cyntiamaspian#Can you please explain. This is an obvious disruptive user and should be blocked indefinitely. -Zanhe (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Currently, I have proven this editors edits here, here, and here to be false. Can someone take the time to look at this and this for factual accuracy. -- Orduin 01:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The changed the infobox religion from "None" to "Islam" today on a BLP who was raised Atheist, with no sourcing given. I vote for a block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done From your mouth to god's ear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant by new user

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

I'm sure this must be a violation of something, but I'm not sure what.

I saw this edit: 1, which violated a consensus on the talk page against the section title "Justification based on Islamic religious text" and added more content whilst moving the position of that section, potentially making other changes to it too. This is not the first time sections have been moved about. However, it drastically increases the weight on ISIL's position in the article.

User:Malam kanam 2003 User talk:Malam kanam 2003Special:Contributions/Malam_kanam_2003 You may notice the redirected to a user-page that has no corresponding user and contribution which appears to imply this user is not using their first account, which is one of I think 12 they made to become auto confirmed.

John Smith the Gamer (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Correction: edit violated the consensus on the talk page, not the previous diff. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppetry, justifying terrorism, acting like a twit. Looking for two quick bans here on the latest incarnation of this SOCK. Legacypac (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Favonian: you should check the history of the article recently a new sock(Abu ali-shabat thawadi) restored the same removed content. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruption and possible trolling

Research888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite being asked for sources a number of times, , , Research888 continues to make unsourced statements on talk pages. Given the subject matter, I suspect there's some trolling going on. --NeilN 22:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Further exchange. --NeilN 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What obligations does an editor have to source statements they make on a Talk page? BlueSalix (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If they continuously make the same type of assertions on a variety of talk pages, and occasionally foray into article space doing the same thing, even after being asked to stop is that not disruption? --NeilN 16:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages? No. Article space? Yes. Your above note is the first time you mentioned anything about article space. BlueSalix (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Grickles: copyright violations, block requested

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

Grickles shows no sign of understanding or respecting our copyright policies. Recent edits containing large-scale copying have been:

• BC Bears from http://www.bcrugby.com/history/history/
• Belmont Shore RFC from http://www.belmontshorerfc.com/club-info
• Denver Barbarians RFC from http://www.denverbarbarians.com/club-news/about-the-barbos/752-dbrfc-building-year-1975-1979 and http://www.denverbarbarians.com/club-news/about-the-barbos/42-club-history
• Olympic Club RFC from http://www.ocrugby.com/history.html
• Old Mission Beach Athletic Club RFC from http://www.ombacrugby.org/about/

CCI requested here. Until and unless this editor shows understanding of our copyright rules and agrees to abide by them, I don't think he or she should be allowed to make further edits. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked given the significance of the issues. Wizardman 04:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Hasteur disruptive behavior.

Despite being specifically directed to not close the WP:BON discussion of his misuse of the bot flag on his bot (in this revision by Xaosflux), Hasteur has insisted upon doing so anyways (in this revision). As such, I'm requesting that both him and his SOCK/Bot accounts be blocked to prevent any more WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior that is stemming from his WP:FUCKYOUIMRIGHTIS WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Since he has banned me from his talk page, and has requested an interaction ban with me, I'm requesting that someone else please notify him of this discussion on his talk page. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} 01:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Guerillero has blocked T13 and removed his Rollback user right. I think it's fair to expect their comments/explanations in this thread shortly, especially since T13 already lodged an unblock request. At the very least, Rollback was not used at all ("undo" was), so that user right should be restored immediately. I will await Guerillero's comments here to avoid any wheel-warring issues. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  Edit warring is a behavior and not based on the number of edits. This isn't the first time that T13 has edit warred over this and `(Reverted edits by Hasteur (talk) to last version by C.Fred)` is the exact edit summary created by using rollback. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  After testing on my sandbox, it appears correct that this edit summary is generated by Rollback (and not undo), contrary to T13's claims. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  That same edit summary is also generated by Twinkle, though with "(TW)" appended (but not, as you say, by undo). Squinge (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm curious, which of the following diffs was created by use of rollback: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6? I'll note that I haven't had a rollback link on any page for a very long time. I disabled it about a month after getting in the usergroup with the code I had offered to other editors who requested the same thing in Phab:T48412 using greasemonky in my Firefox browser to prevent accidental clicks since the purpose of my requesting the group wasn't to use the rollback link (I could, and prefer to use the TW ones when I need that), but it was instead to have access to WP:Huggle and WP:Stiki. I've never had time to get past installation of those, but I hope to someday have the time needed for that. — {{U|Technical 13}} 21:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  I am going out for a bit, but,right now, I do not see any reason to unblock --Guerillero | My Talk 02:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I left the thread open for an extra week to see if some other editor besides ones who have a vendetta for causing me trouble. Nobody responded in over a week so I closed citing IAR due to the fact that rule of "closing a thread you are involved in" is a rule that would prohibit me from improving wikipedia by closing the vindictave complaintant. Hasteur (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how closing the thread improved the encyclopedia. Better to let someone else close it or even to let it just fade into the archives. Back in the old days most discussions were not closed.T13 it hardly is something to block over . Chillum 03:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Xaosflux

• Well what a mess we've got here, my thoughts on this:
  1. Anyone except for Hasteur or Technical 13 should review Misplaced Pages:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Possible_Bot_Issue and determine if it warrants further action or close it.
  2. The summary above supports that Technical 13's reversion was misguided and that he should have used another method of reversion and supplied an edit summary to explain his reasoning.
  3. After reviewing T13's last several thousand edits, this appears to be an isolated issue of the rollback tool, whereas multiple instances of productive vandalism reversion are present. I support T13 having the rollback right restored.
  4. Blocks being preventative (including the aspect of an enforced cool-down period), suggest reducing T13's block period from 48h to a maximum of 24h - I don't think additional time is needed.
  5. Asking that @Guerillero: review #3,#4 above.

• — xaosflux 02:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

With respect, T13's laser focus and multiple reversions of closure is indicative that he cannot put down the stick and walk away from the corpse of the horse. I indicated that because having such a thread open longer with still no updates does not help Misplaced Pages. The issue was identified, contrition was made, promises extracted to not do it again, yet T13 still wants even more punishment. I do not think lowering T13's block length or restoration of rollback is warranted as this is not the first time that they have taken hasty improper action. Hasteur 03:13, 25 January 2015‎

Hasteur, given your multiple reverts it might be wise to keep quiet. Your own conduct is equally unacceptable. —Sladen (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC) And please don't falsify the timestamps on your edits either…

What part of WP:TALKO are you cititing as your NEED to undo my failure to get it 100% perfect on the first try? Please keep your hands OFF my edits. Is it a reasonable assertion to let my timestamp accidentally reflect a little later? Hasteur (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Much as I fear that the conversation may get side-tracked, the relevant policy is WP:TALKO Attributing unsigned comments ("append attribution … if they have failed to sign it"), and Signature cleanup ("…an attempt to fake a signature … edit the signature to the standard form … or some even simpler variant"). I appreciate your further attempts to try to fix the signature are most welcome, and it would be really appreciated if you'd be willing to apply the remainder of WP:SIGCLEAN and self-correct the timestamp in order to avoid any more accidental edit-wars. —Sladen (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Further: 1 change, 1 revert, and one reasonable "Concensus could change action". Definitely not multiple reverts. Hasteur (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note I have declined Technical 13's unblock request, my full reasoning can be found on their talk page. I would be more willing to consider a change in duration if T13 showed any indication they understood and accepted the reason for the block. Chillum 03:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I see that @Shii: declined a T13 unblock request with the reason "The point of a short-term block is to give you time to cool off. You clearly are not nearly cool enough yet, so take this as an opportunity to stand back and reevaluate your life priorities. Shii (tock) 08:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)". How does this tally with WP:COOLDOWN, which appears to directly contradict Shii's assertion? Squinge (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I was completely unaware of this guideline, which must have been added some years after I became an admin. In that context, since he has agreed not to continue anything like disruptive editing, an unblock is deserved. Apologies Shii (tock) 10:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • An honourable response. Squinge (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree. — {{U|Technical 13}} 00:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• My current concerns with the bot have been dealt with by Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 9. I'm very disappointed in Hasteur's inability to deal with this in a WP:CALM and WP:CIVIL manner, but am thankful that this situation is over. I'd like to have an administrator remind Hasteur that his repeated personal attacks, battleground mentality, incivility, threats, and generally disruptive behaviour is inappropriate and request of him to work on those things and when issues arise to simply focus on resolving the issue. I expect this request will be laughed and and ignored, but I'm getting tired of these battles and it is becoming more and more clear to me that the community is either incapable of dealing with or unwilling to deal with the severe, repetitive issues that have been raised about this user. Thank you for your time, and I apologize to those that feel like theirs has been wasted. I realize also that I'm not perfect and have things I need to work on as well, and look forward to growing in those areas if the community will allow it. — {{U|Technical 13}} 00:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a good unblock

Technical 13 is right back at it . Based on a WP:NOTTHEM "Not my fault attitude" - see for a discussion of how a) his canvassing an ANI thread was because the instructions at the top of this page are inadequate and b) how his marking edits as minor is Twinkle's fault, it's my expectation that unless they rapidly get clueful we're looking at someone between six to eighteen months before they will be no longer welcome to edit Misplaced Pages. (I understand this is a "pile-on" comment, but with WP:RFCU dead where am I supposed to point it out otherwise? NE Ent 00:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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

In addition to this, I would like to request a involuntary interaction ban be imposed as only last week my bringing the idea was laughed off the board and boomerangs were threatened. Since then we've had T13 edit war with administrators to keep a scarlet letter present, We've had T13 have their rollback revoked (and restored), We've had T13 blocked for 48 hours (and released early) because they claimed it was not edit warring. I have attempted to disengage from T13, they have decided to continue and enlarge their accusations of high treason in wikipedia when a generous application of WP:IAR would have prevented a significant amount of this disruptive editing. Hasteur (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

And we can see that, the very WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Request for Interaction ban with Technical13 was flatly turned down, with not a single voice of support for it. I am grateful to see that as a result of this charade we finally have a filed and authorised WP:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 9. This is a good thing and neatly confirms that HasteurBot and the behaviour of its owner is not faultless. …We can also observe that it was not even T13 who filed the original bug report that started this mess. And we can observe that the report was responded in pretty-much the same problematic argumentative manner and allegations of hounding.

All you in all you can avoid the "interaction" by playing by the rules, and dealing with bug reports (in a constructive manner). If that is done, consistently, and there still turn out to be the problems then we can deal with them—but I doubt there will be. Finally, I hope you will take the time to fully digest Slakr's long and thoughtful reply from last night which warns of the future, based on the past. —Sladen (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban between Technical 13 and Hasteur. I have seen a bit of this and Technical 13 needs to be stopped now. Let's say that Hasteur has broken every rule in the book and is the worst bot operator on the planet—that still would not justify the relentless and pointless harassment from T13. Operating a bot is hard work and operators should be protected from silly sniping. Sure, raise an issue—raise it twice if wanted. But after that, let the bot people deal with it. I would support whatever it takes to get T13 off Hasteur's back—block, one-way interaction ban, topic ban, site ban—any of these would help the project. I write this in full knowledge of T13's above comment at 00:38, 26 January 2015 where yet more misguided crap is poured on Hasteur. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• I requesting an interaction ban with Hasteur months ago, and was ignored. I'm also tired of attack after attack after attack from Hasteur. If Hasteur was willing to WP:DROP his insistence that I'm out to get him, and just deal with the legitimate concerns that arise there would be no conflicts. I haven't initiated any direct contact with Hasteur in a very long time, and will continue to not do so. I'm very careful to not mention him in my reports of issues. I raised an issue once, as a bot person myself, and there was no reason for Hasteur to keep reverting the BAG people who told him explicitly not to close the topic as he was involved. I was then blocked and had a userright that I've never used for undoing the improperly closed discussion and reporting the situation here for the larger community to deal with. I completely understand the situation and I have more important scripting work to do before WMF1.26-7 is released and 0 JavaScripts on this wiki become nonfunctional. Hasteur, as a final plea with you, please stop your personal attacks and threats. — {{U|Technical 13}} 01:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Technical 13 Your behaviour hasn't been enamouring either. Yes, focusing on Javascript (or anything else) sounds a great idea. If there's a bug report, please do so, but please keep it minimal (with diffs) and avoid piling on afterwards—if necessary this can be done by other editors. —Sladen (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Wait; long multipage arguments are great fun and all, but if @Hasteur: wants an interaction ban, and @Technical 13: wants an interaction ban.... I hereby wave my magic wand, and *poof* there's an interaction ban. EFFECTIVE NOW. Enforceable by blocks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

pinging @Technical 13: again because I messed up the ping the first time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I feel rather obliged to comment here as the thread in question was started by me. First T13 shouldn't be punished for following Misplaced Pages policies and attempting to get action on a user who has admitted himself to have violated policies. Second, Hasteur is in the wrong, he violated many rules and seems to have no care or remorse for his actions, other than quickly filing a bot request to back him up. While I admit his bot is quite useful, the way he used it against me in a debate about G13 (debate here) was unacceptable. He should get off his might horse admit he is in the wrong at the base of this issue. _{Just my two cents.} EoRdE6 02:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou vandalism and POV

This user keeps removing valid reference from the Magnum Crimen article, tags the same text with , alters the quoted text in the same article, refuses to discuss the article changes on the talk page

Issues with article

• Vandalism

My attempt to put back the text that is referenced is prevented by this user.

Referenced test:

According to O. Neumann, Novak was a Croat by birth, and he has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. "He was Chair of Croatian History, which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples".

was replaced by Timbouctou and tagged with

Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. He has held the Chair of Croat History which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples

Earlier text with correct quote

"Some passages have been written by a scholar in a dignified academic gown, in other parts of the book the author assumes the role of public prosecutor."

was altered by inserting while

"Some passages have been written by a scholar in a dignified academic gown, while in other parts of the book the author assumes the role of public prosecutor."

To verify online the quotes, see here and here.

• Logical fallacy

In Timbouctou inlined comments there is statement rv published on http://magnumcrimen.org/ and COPYRIGHTED to "Magnum Crimen, 2015" which makes no sense. The Misplaced Pages Magnum Crimen is copyrighted at least six years before http://magnumcrimen.org/. It is obvious that http://magnumcrimen.org/ copied over most of the Misplaced Pages's Magnum Crimen article. The revert excuse is obviously false; for details see here.

• POV

Further, the same user added these two sentences to this article which are a blatant POV

As reported by the Serbian daily Politika, the publication of the English language edition was financed by a friend of Milorad Ekmečić, a Serbian nationalist historian', who also wrote the foreword to the edition. According to the same article, the publication of the English translation intentionally coincided with the start of the trial for mutual lawsuits in the Croatia–Serbia genocide case before the International Court of Justice, so that "the world would be informed about Ustashe crimes against Serbs during the Second World War".

Both sentences are referenced by „Magnum crimen”, ipak, putuje u svet.

Whoever reads and understands Serbian language can see that there is nothing in that reference saying Serbian nationalist historian', or intentionally coincided with the start of the trial for mutual lawsuits in the Croatia–Serbia genocide case before the International Court of Justice, so that "the world would be informed about Ustashe crimes against Serbs during the Second World War".

For details see here.

References

1. Oscar Neumann: Novak, Viktor, Magnum crimen. Pola vijeka klerikalizma u Hrvatskoj (A Half Century of Clericalism in Croatia). Zagreb, 1948. Pp. 1124 in Journal of Central European Affairs - Volume 10 - 1950, Page 63.

Issues with request for comment

• Harassment and vandalism

I tried to address these issues on the article talk page here. My attempt was ridiculed by

"User:Milos zankov, I'm afraid you are going to be more specific than that in order for your comments to be taken seriously", "Simply saying that other editor's contributions are crap and reverting ad nauseam will hardly help your case." The last two offensive statements came from Timbouctou

Timbouctou inserted his comment in the body of my Request for comment, which I moved in the Comments section and updated my Request for comment. Timbouctou put back his comment inserted into the request comment and removed my request updates. For details see here

Soliciting admin support

Timbouctou keeps publicly soliciting (here, here, and here) his Croatian compatriot, Misplaced Pages administrator Joy contrary to WP:CANVASS which intervened on behalf of Timbouctou , see here --Milos zankov (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I took a quick look at it, and there really was a problem with Timbouctou reinserting a text which has a tone not at all supported by the source. I made the changes so the text reflects what the source really says (diff). Timbouctou should really not missuse sources the way he did, neither add POV content such as calling a historian "nationalist historian" just by his personal opinion (diff when he first time added the text). FkpCascais (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais Thank you for the correction you've made. How about removing the valid reference and requesting where I provided the online verification of the referenced text, then how about claiming baselessly a copyright violation? How about removing my comments from the talkpage?--Milos zankov (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

First off, this is not an appropriate venue to discuss article content. Secondly, you clearly have WP:COMPETENCE issues regarding the way discussions are led and the overall cooperative work needed to build this project. Thirdly, the text you want to see in the said article (about a pretty controversial political book) was lifted verbatim from http://magnumcrimen.org/, a website which serves to promote the said book, and which has copyright on its entire contents. Fourth, you are lying through your teeth with claims that I misrepresented an article in a Serbian newspaper about the book, and fifth - this is the second time you copy pasted the entire thread to ANI after your previous attempt ended in it being archived. Sixth, there were at least five (5) other editors who left negative comments on article talk and your own talk page about your edits and who questioned your good faith in launching an RfC. Seventh, I have no desire to waste my time on debating actions of a single-purpose account which is here solely and exclusively because he/she has a political axe to grind. You should have been indef blocked by now, but it's not my call to make so I guess you'll have a lot more copy-pasting at ANI to do. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)