Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erpert (talk | contribs) at 14:15, 8 September 2013 (comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Topic ban for Esoglou

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I concur and a reading of Roscelese's page shows she lets her personal bias reflected her editing and she uses threats of topic bans in order to intimidate others. If someone needs to be topic banned I would nominate her. She plays games and is disruptive to other editors who are exercising good faith in order to push her pov. 208.54.40.234 (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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

If this continues to be sparsely attended and I do an RFC/U instead, I'll let you know, as you seem to have similar problems with the user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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

There are two POV pushing and largely SPA editors who are constantly attempting to distort the neutrality of the article with their often poorly written edits containing thinly veiled personal commentary and soapboxing as well as reliance on some highly selective and POV citations. Esolglou is *not* one of these two editors. Anyone should be able to see from the talk page who are most concerned to push their own personal agendas as well as being constantly offensive. Don't let these two editors fool you that Esolglou is somehow the culprit. Afterwriting (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I know that you think that, but you haven't actually presented any evidence, so I'm not sure how you expect anyone to take you seriously. Please don't mistake your sulking over my adding reliably cited information that you find personally distasteful for a legitimate behavioral issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This is typical of the bitchy comments which Roscelese keeps serving up as her way of trying to bully and intimidate other editors on the talk pages of articles and other editors. It is her and the other idiological agenda editor who keep distorting the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article with their simplistic generalisations based on selective sources. She doesn't fool me for a moment that this is all really about her misuse of Misplaced Pages to campaign for her own personal agendas. We should not have to keep tolerating this kind of soapboxing nonsense. Afterwriting (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage with you in this thread anymore. If you're just going to complain about my personality instead of presenting any evidence of wrongdoing, there isn't exactly anything I can refute; it's all very well to claim there's a content issue, but the fact that when confronted with a request for any evidence all you can say is "she's sooooo bitchy!" should make it clear that that's not what's going on here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

For your information, as you well know, I did *not* in fact ever say "she's sooooo bitchy!". If you choose to disingenuously misrepresent and exaggerate the comments of other editors then you need to accept responsibility for this. I suppose you imagine that your own previous comments falsely accusing me of "sulking" were somewhow not complaining about my personality? Very interesting. Afterwriting (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You dismissed a (female) editor's complaints by calling them "bitchy". That's actually not OK, no more than Esoglu's attempt to draw attention to the same editor's sexual orientation was OK. If these are the standards of behavior at Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, then clearly some outside administrative oversight is necessary. MastCell  23:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You can impute whatever suspected motivations you imagine to my wording but your interpretation of this is still completely mistaken. Whatever connotations of sexist offensiveness the use of the word "bitchy" might have in your part of the world, which I assume is the United States, here in Australia the word does not carry anything like this weight of connotation and is unlikely to be reacted to with indignant outrage. Here it is an everyday word which is commonly used by both men and women to refer to someone's snarky comments regardless of that person's gender. For an Australian to say that anyone's (male or female) comments are "bitchy" is not anything like the same thing as calling a person a "b....". So please don't project your own culture's assumptions about language onto my moral character. Your criticism of me on this issue is 100% wrong. And I trust that this is now the end of this unecessary conflict. Afterwriting (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The behavior at that article has often been atrocious. To the extent that there are two sides in current debates (a useful oversimplification), each seems more interested in framing the article in terms calculated to offend the other rather than in improving encyclopedic value, and each seems intent on goading the other into making damfool offensive statements on discussion pages. This is not constructive behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've undone the completely inappropriate closure of this discussion by its initiator. If Roscelese wanted to withdraw this request and pursue related issues elsewhere, that would be one thing. But trying to terminate a discussion that's not going their way in the manner of an independent closer, marked by snarky comments about editors who dispute their positions, is uncivil and disruptive, and, in my opinion, not up to the standards of honesty and candor that should be expected of discussion here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can't actually compel me to un-withdraw a request I do not want to pursue in this forum. If you have your own problems with Esoglou, I have no objection to your using my diffs, but you have absolutely no business removing my statement of withdrawal as though you were forcing me to pursue this issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It is interesting that people like Esoglou, who does not even have the most basic grasp about the difference between sexual orientation and sexual preference, are so heavily editing an article relevant to homosexuality. Would WP:competence be relevant? Cavann (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Cavann That is a clear personal attack on Esoglou stating he does not have the most basic grasp. You have basically labeled him as incompetent or stupid if you like. It is also uncivil. You use personal attacks and imply he has no business editing the article due to his ignorance. What made you the one who decides who can edit and one's editing capabilities. My question why such vile comments about Esoglou? That type of behavior is not to be tolerated. 208.54.40.235 (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Close this discussion without action per John Carter. I think this is a typical situation of a heated content dispute, when one of the sides brings another to the ANI. A contentious discussion on ANI follows, with one of the sides "catching" another on various "offenses", politically incorrect statements, etc. One should also remember that statements related to complex cultural issues, such as that one, can be interpreted differently by people from different cultures. Looking from my perspective, none of the sides said anything really offensive. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Note that I already closed this discussion because I think RFC/U is a better venue. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz re-opened it without asking me. I don't think "close without action" is the right way to put it because that implies that the whole discussion has taken place and no fault has been found, rather than what actually happened: that the filing party withdrew in order to better prepare evidence since it was clear that more explanation of how they added content not in the sources, deliberately made work for other editors, etc. was required for the benefit of the many users unfamiliar with the subject area or the editing dispute, and not just the diffs of the behavior alone. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • If you want to withdraw it, a simple statement is appropriate - not a unilateral termination of discussion with slams bordering on personal attackson editors who disagree with you. This is a community process, not your own talk page, or a place where you (or any editor) vents because discussion doesn't go their way. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: Discussion restored per AN consensus that Roscolese's unilateral closure was improper. Roscolese has said they wish to withdraw the request for a topic ban and will file an RFC/U. Other matters raised in this thread remain open for discussion here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Wer900

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wonder how much of the the above comment was influenced by those Wikipediocracy goats. Herr Kommisar 01:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative Proposal: Proposed interaction ban of User: Wer900

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We believe in escalating blocks at Misplaced Pages, do we not? Carrite (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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

• Support Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Not sufficient per my comments above, and per Mathsci's comment in this section. When a single user has consistent difficulties interacting civilly with multiple editors, an I-Ban concerning only one of those editors is logically not the best response, as it only addresses one portion of the problem, and, further, assumes that the interaction problems are mutual and not originating primarily from one side. Wer900's comments in this very report are more than enough to establish that he is the locus of the problem, and therefore the solution needs to be more general, and focused on that user only. I might support a "reverse topic ban" which restricts Wer900 to editing only in the astronomy and exobiology areas, since his disruption to the project seems to be occurring only on talk pages and in Misplaced Pages space, but that's as far as I'm willing to go away from an indef block, so my !vote in the section above stands for the moment, and I favor an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support broad IBAN: Support unidirectional interaction ban in interacting with Beeblebrox, Jimbo Wales, Resolute, Kudpung, Beyond my Ken. Or at least a strongly worded suggestion that he ceases to engage them. For reasons of WP:ROPE this effort seems prudent rather than a straight out block. I would suggest that if a further unidirectional interaction ban is required at some future time that it would indicate that it is time to cut our losses. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Supporting newer proposal, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Such a unidirectional ban would merely allow these editors to continue to torment me in the same way that I have (purportedly) "harassed" Beeblebrox. All editors involved in this dispute should be placed under a mutual probation, whereby their interactions are monitored by an outside administrator. As for the citation of the essay "Give 'em enough rope", are you serious? You have no right to embellish its citation to make it look like policy, because it is an essay and especially because one of the primary writers is none other than Beeblebrox himself.

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

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

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

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

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

• • • Interesting, Wer900. Given it was the anon IP that I was calling an attention whore, should I take your statement as an admission that it was KW evading his ban? Resolute 02:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      • You know the broader context in which your comment was made, Resolute; yours was a thinly veiled attack against Kiefer.Wolfowitz, even if the anon was not Kiefer. Nobody thinks that your comment was not directed toward the most recently banned prominent child-protection whistleblower. Your ridiculous assertion that the anon is Kiefer is truly Kafkaesque™. Wer900 • talk 16:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
        • These statements about Resolute are not based on evidence (one edit about an anonymous IP posting on a highly visited WP page). Nobody has so far agreed with your hunches, which are just prejudiced personal attacks. An RfAr is certainly not the way forward. Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
          • The arbcom banned user Captain Occam has given Wer900 more advice over on wikipediocracy. As Wer900 disclosed on-wiki, Captain Occam asked him in May 2013 to start an RfAr about me. Since 2010 Captain Occam has engaged in editing through others to continue a campaign of harassment, which included his request to Wer900 and later included outing. Captain Occam has now suggested that an RfAr is advisable to handle Beeblebrox and "the other problematic users who are involved" ... There are no prizes for guessing what that might mean. It is a much better idea for Wer900 to follow Carrite's advice and to ignore Captain Occam and his enablers. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC) As predicted Captain Occam has now suggested that Wer900 should start an arbcom case with me as a party. Occam writes, " you and I both know that ArbCom (and more specifically AGK) has given you explicit permission to do that, and permission to do it on my behalf." Occam's going cranky in his old age. Mathsci (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Well, since you claim to know what everyone else is thinking, I'm not certain what you need the rest of us for. You seem happier having conversations with yourself anyway. Resolute 14:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose one, it's double jeopardy. Original motion likely opposed. 2, if he was in fact guilty, he should have had the original punishment. 3 If he's not guilty he's not guilty and there should be no reprimand. There were other people here that were attacking users battleground mentality allows us to pick favourites and eliminate editors we don't like. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Recommend mediation.Greengrounds (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Sadly, there is no "mediation" procedure. It's not "double jeopardy," it's an alternative proposal. Nobody questions that Wer has been over the line, the question is whether he will wake up and what should be done about it if he doesn't... Carrite (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose  TUXLIE  11:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Makes much more sense!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support As it will keep Wer editing constructively, while staying away from potentially volatile comments. Herr Kommisar 00:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no valid basis for any restriction on Wer.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not the right remedy. Wer can bitch about admins as much as he/she likes, but needs to be more careful with veracity and vastly reduce the hyperbole. Criticising (and praising) admins is a good thing. Pinging someone you're talking about - especially if it's criticism - is polite; but if you'd rather Wer didn't ping you, tell him/her not to. What you can't do is stop him/her from criticising you. The way to do that is to be a decent person. If you are a decent person, and there is no substance to his accusations, open an RfC and prove it. All I see here is a few admins bitching about being criticised. Realise, though, that if you bring on an RfC based on "Wer keeps criticising me", your behaviour will be reviewed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints

User:Wer900 is formally warned to "comment on content, not on the contributor". Any complaints or negative remarks aimed at another editor's motives, qualities, or behavior are to be limited to the following two types of venue: formal Misplaced Pages dispute resolution venues (but only when that editor is the subject of discussion); and/or direct dialogue with the other editor initiated at that editor's talk page (but only so long as that editor is willing to continue dialogue). Wer900 is also prohibited from casting aspersions on any group of Misplaced Pages editors, whether or not any individual editors are identifiable members of the group. An uninvolved administrator may block Wer900 without further warning for violations of this restriction.

• Support as proposer. Allows Wer900 to continue constructive editing and to seek actual resolution of concerns with other editors' behavior; but addresses the concerns expressed above by other editors, and has broader effect than interaction bans with individual editors might. Note: "may" in last sentence of proposal is deliberate; borderline remarks might merit a warning/clarification by an admin rather than a block, so I wanted to leave room for discretion. alanyst 16:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support That's actually quite a smart proposal which effectively deals with the issue and does not prevent Wer900 from editing, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This looks far too much like a unilateral gag order for my taste. I'm especially concerned by the "any group of Misplaced Pages editors," which could be "broadly construed" by someone looking to block the editor in question. It also presumes that Wer900 is the only editor with issues in the above discussion. I'm not sure that this has been determined yet. This comment is motivated by the repeated re-opening of the above complaint by individuals who could be seen as involved. Intothatdarkness 19:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I acknowledge having seen this. I prefer my language; this is a mousetrap with what seems to me overbroad parameters — "casting aspersions" — which will almost definitely result in a block. Carrite (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - My comment above was an edit conflict with Intothatdarkness, who correctly points out that this proposal would effectively silence a consistent critic of WP structures instead of limiting the blockable offense to further attacks on "another editor's motives, qualities, or behavior," which is the actual problem. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I am sympathetic to this concern. My intention with the wording about casting aspersions on groups was to avoid a loophole whereby Wer900 could continue the disruptive grousing but avoid sanctions by simply not naming names. If that restriction goes too far the other way, I am open to omitting it or weakening it somehow. alanyst 19:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose No restrictions on Wer are necessary, certainly not anything so mealy-mouthed. Get over it people. Move on.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The accusations against Wer900 boil down to complaining about Beeblebrox, a lot. This is not hugely disruptive, but it's annoying. Wer900 should put a sock in it. If you sanction or warn for this, you should turn right around and do the same to any other editor who exhibits the same behavior—a good example would be Mathsci who constantly complains about banned user Occam. For the record, I oppose any sanction against either editor. It's just whining. →StaniStani  19:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment All the oppose votes so far appear to be by regular contributors to wikipediocracy. That includes Stanistani. Wer900 is the latest editor in a series associated with Captain Occam that has included Ferahgo the Assassin, SightWatcher, Woodsrock, TrevelyanL85A2, Boothello, Zeromus1, The Devil's Advocate, Cla68, Akuri, and Mors Martell. In May 2013 he agreed to start an arbcom case on behalf of Occam. Stanistani, who perhaps has his own agenda, has rejected those diffs as "fake". Even now Captain Occam is agitating off-wiki for the same thing. As a wikipediocracy admin, Stanistani could easily stop that if he wanted to. This mess started over there. Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Musing "... of all tools used in the shadow of the moon, men are most apt to get out of order." →StaniStani  05:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There is no correspondence between Beeblebrox-Wer900 and Captain Occam-me. Occam is a highly disruptive arbcom banned user who, with Stanistani's acquiesence, has continued his disruption on wikipediocracy, including outing. Why compare him with Beeblebrox? After being recruited to proxy-edit for Occam, Wer900 made a number of grotesque and unprovoked statements about others. Why compare him with me? If Stanistani wants to make this kind of false comparison, please could he do so back in the Kingdom of the Trolls. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I stated in the AN/I that I would not start a case against you on behalf of Captain Occam, and I am a man of my word; I will not start any case on the topic against you. If and only if this goes to ArbCom (a process best avoided, so please don't reopen the "ArbCom?" section), though, you will be named as a party given that you have been the largest purveyor of insinuations and half-truths over here. Regarding the Occam affair, never forget that the edits I made about the case were to the talk page of Viriditas (talk · contribs), a now-blocked user whom I respect, in order to request his taking the case. Notice, in the cited diff, that I never stated that I would take the case outright, asking for another user to ask as a safety valve for any imprudence of mine. (Don't go after Viriditas; he declined to take the case, in no uncertain terms.) I never intended to take the case on my own. What you reported me for, Mathsci, was the mere specter, the mere shadow, of a case that never materialized. Stop harping about the case and my "seekrit" connections with Occam and AGK; my inaction on AGK's email has rendered it moot. Wer900 • talk 22:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have never contributed to the site in question, so trying to tar every oppose as "they're members of that bad place" simply won't work. What I do oppose are loosely-worded proposals that allow for the easy formation of lynch mobs. Intothatdarkness 13:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I must have confused you with "Only in death". Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are you bringing me up again? I've avoided you since the beginning of this year, but you're still talking about me. I do not like my name being brought up in discussions that no longer concern me. I think everyone else is tired of hearing your theories about this, and they don't seem to be getting any traction with arbitrators anymore. For example I see that when you tagged Mors Martell as a sock puppet, an arbitrator removed the tag. -SightWatcher (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The thing that Wer needs to stop is "battleground behavior involving attacks upon any other editor's motives or qualities." I don't personally think this even needs to be spelled out (I just strongly hint at this in my language) — but if one were trying to spell it out in no uncertain terms, that's how I would spell it out. I also think that a formal one-way interaction ban between Wer and Beeblebrox is called for, seeing that he is the complainant. Carrite (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is unnecessary. The thread was already closed as 'no consensus' by an uninvolved admin, and I'm sure Wer is well aware that their future comments will be subject to close scrutiny from others. -- Hillbillyholiday 20:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• support: hopefully, it will get Wer to stop and consider his actions and comments. this does not prohibit him from commenting on RFC/U's or any of the notice boards ( and if it does, it need to be rephrased). also does not prohibit content discussion on talk pages. it only prohibits him from making comments that could reasonable be interpreted as personal attacks or harassment. -- Aunva6 21:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, especially since it is not just a question of what Wer has said about Beebelbrox, but part of a larger pattern of behavior. The admonition to limit complaints about other editors to only the proper venues is a very good one for anybody, not just Wer. However, that said, it's painfully obvious to me that ANI is incapable of effecting these kinds of proposals, and that the broader issue of aspersion-casting is going to wind up at ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per IRWolfie- and Tryptofish. Wer900 needs to get back to content editing and stop making the problematic comments that led to this report. Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support An effective, sensible, and pretty watered down compromise. I'm amazed that anyone is still against this. This sort of nonsense is why our one of our core policies has turned into an unenforceable empty promise. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. We should all stick to this, it's just that we usually don't enforce violations of this, because it's not always clear what is a violation and what not. So, I would be in favor of first asking Wer900 if he is willing to voluntarily stick to this, which in practice means that he will not persue his arguments against Beeblebrox in the way he has been doing. The problem with imposing this restriction on him is that it could be used, say 4 years from now in some completely unrelated issue where he would legitimately raise a problem on e.g. Jimbo's page. Take e.g. Sceptre's recent blocks for posting on Jimbo's page even when Jimbo said that she should not have been blocked for bringing a problem to his attention. Count Iblis (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment above. Wer may criticise or praise admins. What Wer must do is get better at it. Wer, you must slow down and be much more careful with your claims, and more discriminating about where you make them. If you don't improve in those regards, I'll support some kind of constraint next time this comes up.

I see you're being urged to request arbitration. That would be a mistake. If you think Beeblebrox (whom I don't know from Adam) is a problem to the project, then the best thing you could do would be to build a clear, concise but comprehensive case and open an RfC to see what the editor community thinks. If your case is convincing, the community can handle the problem with some carefully targeted restrictions addressing Beeblebrox's specific areas of concern. If that is unsuccessful, and you still think some kind of restrictions would be appropriate, then is the time to request arbitration. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Anti -religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of persistent breaches over several months

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

Personal attacks

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

Use of unreliable sources

• see here
• here.

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

• here

Deletion of reliably sourced content

• ]
• ]

NPOV

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

Removed the entire content of an article

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

• Blanked the entire Jesus article and replaced it with childish obscenities Smeat75 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Harassment of editors, deletion of articles and general disruption

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

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

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

Votes/discussion for topic ban of Greengrounds

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban

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

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

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

• Support I am completely uninvolved, not a Christian, and agree this user has a serious problem playing well with others. Ultra Venia (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose From what I've seen of him he is open to reasoning and sources when approached in discussion. I think he should perhaps be reminded not to break WP:POINT, to stick to reliable sources and not to describe editors (or the rest of the world) as divided into "pro" and "anti" religion, but give a nuanced and fair descrition of the relation between science and religion. I think he is able to follow that if given a chance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi User:Maunus, could I trouble you to provide evidence of this reasonableness by way of a link? Are you sure it wasn't an example of incoherence, where he argues one point for a moment then switches to another contradictory position in short order? This I have seen - "reasonableness", not so much.Ozhistory (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose pretty much as per Martijn Meijering above, particularly if he shows a willingness to take part in coaching, and maybe told rather clearly to tone down the rhetoric a little. The topic of "science and religion" is a pretty complex one, with, if I remember right, a two volume encyclopedia about it, and several journals. If we had someone willing to work on developing content related to this topic, and this editor seems to maybe be interested in that broad field, I could see him becoming a very valuable editor. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Based on history of recent edits to user talk pages and Jesus, for which I have blocked the editor for 31 hours, I now wholeheartedly Support a topic ban. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• Support echo Martijn Meijering's thoughts. Considering all but one of his edits have been in the past 4 months and more than half were made in the last 10 days, seems to me he has a serious axe to grind which is "brand new" to him or something else is going on. Ckruschke (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
• Support. Greengrounds seems to think that anyone who disagrees with him does so on religious grounds--what else is "If you don't agree with us, we'll kick you out, we won't allow you to edit, and if you take the lord's name in vain, this is heresy and you will be apostatized." supposed to mean? (And why is that in quotes, anyway--who's he quoting?) That attitude is bad for talk page dynamics. But this anti-religious attitude extends to sources, also--on Talk:Josephus on Jesus, Greengrounds is arguing that one of the sources needs to be removed from the article on the grounds that the author is a theologian, so he can't be an authority on history (although first Greengrounds said that theology is pseudoscholarship). Of course, one thing that theologians do is study the history of religions, so it's entirely appropriate, and indeed necessary, to use them as sources in articles on religious history. So my suggestion is that Greengrounds avoid editing articles about Christianity until he gets a better grasp of how Misplaced Pages works, and until he has better familiarity with academic work on the topics he's interested in. --Akhilleus (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support; had been going to support this or similar a few days ago, but maybe thought it might be a bit much, but now i have to, if based on nothing other than today's disruptive editing. This is a collaborative project; an editor more interested in being insulting and childish than cooperative needs some help, and staying away from this particular area may help him learn. We can but hope. Cheers, Lindsay 10:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I have to agree with Akhilleus's assessment above. Either G lacks the competence to weigh sources, or G is pushing a POV. If there's another explanation, I'm open to hearing it, but even after the concerns raised on this page, today G has called Smeat75 a "lazy, disruptive editor" and "Meat" (edit summary and post, so not a typo). I consider that level of deliberate incivility worth a short-term block. Editors who want to give G other options should point to diffs where G has given any indication that a second chance would be used constructively: I certainly don't find that in the shrieking about apostasy at the top of this section, the obsession with characterizing other editors' motives, the choice of a narrow set of articles to edit, the desire to arbitrarily exclude the views of scholars who meet RS standards, and the agenda of debunking (neutrality is not achieved through a cacophony of POVs). All together, it quacks like a personal truth quest. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In looking at this further, today's serial PRODs and this gratuitous, taunting post to a user talk page continue to indicate agenda-driven editing that would support the topic ban (and in my opinion underscore the usefulness of a short-term block for disruption and incivility). Cynwolfe (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• support. I've held off expressing supopoprt because I think Greenground hadsome valid points in the discussion of the Hitler article, but his behaviour is just becoming uncontrollable, and so clearly driven by a crude anti-Christian agenda. Reasonable discussion is impossible because Greengounds seems to assume that everyone who disagrees with his edits must be motivated by religious dogma. Paul B (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see above there are 11 who support a topic ban, and 5, including me, who do not favor a topic ban at this time. I also note that, given the subsequent behavior detailed below, I am experiencing very serious doubts about that earlier expressed opposition on my part, which would make it now more like 11 for, 4 against, and 1, me, now leaning a little for. The recent actions indicated below to my eyes seriously raise questions about whether there is any real chance the editor involved is willing to improve his conduct, and that is a very serious concern. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support, even if he stops the blatant policy violations, I don't see his net edits being constructive in this topic. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Martin Meijering. Topic-banning a productive editor, while sometimes necessary, comes with considerable collateral damage. Greengrounds should take heed of these concerns and amend his habits. If he does not do so, I would certainly support. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Dear Joefromrandb - not only has he not done so, he has gotten worse: see: ; ; and ! I expect (and request) that when Martijn Meijering has viewed these developments, he will switch his vote, as has John Carter. I respectfully ask that you reconsider. Ozhistory (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support-that's beyond the pale. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolution?

So who takes responsibility at this point? The breaches continue, and I and others are being by this rogue editor for participating in this thread. I am not at all familiar with this process, so I am not sure how it would move to a topic ban (which the clear majority, including various admins, support above). I note that user:Martijn Meijering and user:John Carter and a couple of others wrote above that they opposed a topic ban only "for now", but have noted poor behaviour on a wide scale. Can I ask then, in light of the last few days of ongoing breaches, if they are still opposed to some sort of block or topic ban? Elsewhere, new editors such as User:Arxiloxos have been reverting Greenground's disruptive edits. My feeling is that the pattern and biases of this editor are so ingrained that he will not change - unless he is a sixteen year old or some such thing (which would explain much of his poor grammar, spelling, grasp of the subject matter and general incoherence), and in which case he may mature with age. At any rate, the consensus is clearly that he is a disruptive presence, and only a few have argued to give him time to change before a ban. It seems obvious that he should be banned from Christianity related articles, as these are the target of an especial loathing from him. But to be fair to wikipedia, I think that should be extended to cover any religious articles - at least for a period. Given that I remain the target of his harassment, a ban could not come soon enough as far as I am concerned, but I would be grateful if participating admins (User:Kudpung, User:Akhilleus etc) can advise on how this would be brought about? Ozhistory (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've made my suggestion in detail in another section. Please not that someone has been tinkering with the discussion to duplicate votes by editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Basically, you wait until an ininvolved admin takes notice of this thread and decides that s/he wants to do something about it, or until the thread dies out from lack of activity. If the thread gets archived, you then decide whether you want to try another venue (e.g. Arbcom, since a user RfC has already been conducted on Greengrounds). Dealing with a disruptive user is a haphazard and frequently disappointing process. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So there's a preponderance of evidence, almost universal support from numerous editors that at the very least a short term subject block is needed, and this is probably going to die on the vine because we can't get an admin to act. Remind me not to get involved in one of these again... Ckruschke (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

It will only "die on the vine" if conversation basically dies off enough for it to be automatically archived, and the best way to ensure that don't happen is just to keep the threads going. If there is enough activity, sooner or later, probably over the weekend, someone uninvolved will have the time and inclination to act on it. ALthough I do regret the archiving of the thread which had several !votes regarding another editor, that being the thread whose title caused the renaming of this dicussion. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Ckruschke, what more is needed to make someone who can do something take some action?Smeat75 (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring as IP & obscene attacks on users

It seems that Greengrounds has logged out and is now edit-warring as User:198.161.203.6. He's reverted a bunch of edits by OzHistory and Smeat75 (as the posts above show he's been in conflict with these users already), and he's just reverted me on Historical Jesus. I think a short block is certainly in order. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And other grossly inappropriate edits to other user talk pages here. I've blocked him for 31 hours. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't sock-puppeting a fast track to a ban? We'd have to make sure the new disruptive IP is in fact Greengrounds, but it is natural to suspect it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It is if it is clearly intentional, and it could be that this was just not logging on. I'm not sure in this case whether we can show it was intentional socking, giving their having logged on later, but maybe it could be. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, logged in as such, posted obscenities all over the place. Surely that is enough now for at least a topic ban? Smeat75 (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A shocking set of attacks on user pages: ; ! Dear admins, please do your duty and topic ban this guy, so we can all get on with our editing without being abused. Ozhistory (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds is indef blocked

Greengrounds has been indefinitely blocked: . Two IP addresses he used during his flame out, User:209.91.107.158 and User:209.91.107.175, have been blocked for 31 hours. A third IP address, User:198.161.203.6, belongs to the Edmonton Public LIbrary, and remains unblocked. Greengrounds has posted a retirement message on his talk page. Hopefully, we're all done with this. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I was going to change my vote if the sock-puppeting were proven, but that's moot now. It's a pity that this whole process takes so long, a prompt warning might have been effective. Then again, maybe not. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a pity that this whole process takes so long - Ain't it the truth.Smeat75 (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I began this thread on 29 August with a request not for a block or ban or even a warning but that an admin would try to explain WP guidelines to him. Nothing was done for days as the situation escalated and escalated and had not Greengrounds had a public meltdown might still be going on. Once again I endorse Cynwolfe's comment on this thread "We need as a community to find a better way to deal with these kinds of situations before they become cesspools that drain time and energy."Smeat75 (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The trouble is that users like this can seem to have something to say at first, because they seem to be engaging with the content. So when an outside party looks at it, the user doesn't seem immune to reason. But the goal of Greengrounds wasn't to describe aspects of Jesus neutrally; it was a truth quest to shield readers from ideas and beliefs pertaining to Jesus that the user doesn't approve of. A warning never works with this type of user. It only prolongs the slow death, since they might settle down and behave for a while. You just have to stay calm and let them start throwing the cream pies, so it's on record for all to see. And I wouldn't consider this a retirement announcement. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Continued policy violations from User:TonyTheTiger at WT:FOUR (close requested)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

?!? How in the world is he acting as a racist? Please, illuminate us to your thought process here. Ed  09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Manning – NE Ent 23:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This needs to stop.

Seriously, you're arguing over whether to put imperial or metric measurements first? I don't know if you all realise how ridiculous this argument is and how ridiculous it is making all the involved parties look. Just put it in alphabetical order, honestly. It is unbelievable that there was an RFC to discuss it let alone several. Blackmane (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards