Misplaced Pages

• Winkelvi has withdrawn his promise to stay out of articles where he has had disputes, and it is being argued out now on his user talk page.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

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

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

Request for Clarification: Was There a Topic-Ban?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed topic ban of Renejs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed 30 day block of Renejs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed site ban of Renejs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You were still bullying.

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerns about tendentious editing

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

• 17:48, 2 January 2015 our article said

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They were my deletions--your additions.

. . . and he kept reinserting them.

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

Reverting to the status quo was entirely appropriate.

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

He needs to obtain a consensus first.

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

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

I question this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 19:46, 5 January 2015 Mmeijeri reverts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could an administrator please step in?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For reference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed sanctions

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

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

Pre-planned tag-team edit war and AfD on Aro gTér page

Users User:CFynn, User:Ogress, User:VictoriaGrayson and User:Montanabw discussed bringing an AfD against this version of the Aro gTér page prior to any editing involvement or talk page discussion. Their desire for the AfD was based on personal hostility and religious prejudice:

"The Aro gTér people are a fringe cult; not exactly one but plastic shaman-y"

“the facial hair alone is enough to make me want to prod-tag the article.”

“I'm certain they won't be able to come up with a single with a single reliable source to substantiate any of their claims.” (The article was extensively footnoted to reliable sources before they removed nearly all of them.)

“Question: are you up for the Sh--storm if I were to AfD the article?”

"They are a very tiny cult"

After their content edit war and series of repeated mass deletions which ignored extensive on-going improvements to the article by several editors, ignored attempts to seek consensus or compromise, and refused to work with incremental change, I withdrew from the discussion:

Lily W (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Discussing your tagteaming is not itself tagteaming.VictoriaGrayson 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Forum shopping. This is an attempt to do a runaround of the consensus reached on the article talk page, as well as the discussion on the AfD page. Recommend possible boomerang if the forum shopping and unsubstantiated allegations against good faith editors continues. I should point out that there may be possible COI and agenda-based editing at work here, per the discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I asked editors with whom I have confidence to help edit the page. You will clearly see from our histories that VictoriaGrayson (talk · contribs) and I have had conflicts - we are certainly not allies - and Montanabw (talk · contribs) has been a reliable editor on many pages but doesn't know me from anyone. On the other hand, I have seen the editors on the page engage in apparent meatpuppetry and COI. And the "shitstorm" in question is currently occurring, is it not? This is forum shopping: there's a pending AfD and, in fact, the editor who brought this claim constantly states there was consensus when there was nothing of the sort. Ogress _smash! 04:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Viriditas and Ogress.VictoriaGrayson 04:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Certain editors should be particularly mindful that facial hair is not an adequate reason for prodding an article and that referring to the article subject as a "cult" may appear to others as prejudice. Controversial removals/additions of sources and such should be discussed on the talk page. —Dark 07:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• The leader / founder of the Aro gTér certainly has a remarkable set of whiskers. I suspect the person who made that comment may have been rather envious. As for being a "cult" ~ As a relatively small religious the group does fit the traditional (non-perjoritive) meaning of the term, but as for the modern (pejorative) sense they don't fit. There have never been unsavoury "cult type" accusations about them - in fact quite a number of people I know have met them and they all remarked on what a nice bunch of people they are (though these people were all very sceptical about the authenticity of the Aro gTér "lineage"). Of course if they were an unsavoury cult you can bet the British press would have written innumerable articles about them - in which case there would be no question of notability. Maybe that's the problem - the Aro gTér are too nice to have gained the notoriety that would have made them notable. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Lily W (talk · contribs) has an edit history revolving around this sole web page. Arthur chos (talk · contribs) has been editing this page since 2008 and his edits are focussed on Aro and practices like kum nye they specialise in. Asking other, demonstrably uninvolved, editors to edit the page seemed logical. After I did so, JosephYon (talk · contribs) showed up: he comments above. His edit history is limited solely to Aro and this page. And plastic shaman is a technical term with its own Misplaced Pages page; the Aro have been accused of this behavior as they are entirely white. Ogress _smash! 10:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with DarkFall. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ogress: I googled "plastic shaman" together with "aro gter" and found only one result. It does not accuse Aro of being plastic shamans, but uses them as an authoritative source on Tibetan Buddhism. It appears that no one has accused Aro of being "plastic shamans" besides you.

The reason you give for calling them "plastic shamans" is that they "are entirely white". Is this not plain racism? Do we believe you would have behaved the same way if the leader of the Aro gTer were a Tibetan? Do you want to argue that "being entirely white" is a reason a Buddhist group should not be in Misplaced Pages? Do you even have any evidence that they are entirely white?

You and others have repeatedly simply invented facts about the group. On the talk page, Montanabw asserted that it is "a one-man show"; VictoriaGrayson replied that it is a "a tiny group of people, probably less than 10". A moment's fact-checking showed these claims were pure invention. In reply, I pointed out that the group's main web page has biographies for 16 Aro Lamas plus 11 other teachers, and the contacts page has groups in 18 locations world-wide. The only reply to that, from Montanabw, was to propose deletion.

All this seems to support Lily W's claim that this was motivated by "personal hostility and religious prejudice". Arthur chos (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang and speedy close: I believe we have a t least one sockpuppet account here, perhaps more, LilyW, ZuluPapa5, and JosephYon may very well be the same user. (Possibly Arthur chos as well, but he appears to be an independent editor) I have this article nominated for deletion, because it appears to be a small, non-notable group headed by a single leader no one else seems to ever have heard of and it has all the hallmarks of a small religious cult group. ALL the sources at issue were either written by the cult founder, attributed to the cult founder's guru, or are from "in-house" web sites. I suspect this ANI filing could be in retaliation for the AfD. I was asked to take a more or less neutral look at this article because I have weighted in on some other articles about fringe groups/cults within Buddhism. (Full disclosure: I'm not a Buddhist, I do have an interest in Human Rights issues surrounding Tibet). We have been looking at this article for over a month, and not only can I not find WP:RS sources for it, neither can the article's supporters, hence my nomination. Also, chitchat on a public user page is not a pre-planned "tagteam." It was open collaboration, discussing a course of action for all to see. Hardly a conspiracy. Sorry about the crack about the bad facial hair. (But seriously, do check out the link, the group really IS a cult with a "plastic shaman" We've deleted articles with more notability than this). Montanabw 19:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no "personal hostility and religious prejudice" against the Aro gTér people as the original poster of this incident accuses me (and others of)- I'd just like to see this article conform to Misplaced Pages standards. The trouble is there is a dearth of independent sources on Aro gTér and everything written about them turns out to be written by them or just a paraphrase of what the group says about itself. Personally I have no big problem with that - so long as the article makes it clear that what the group says about its tradition has no historical basis and the article is not based on independent sources (how could it be when there basically are none). The tradition is simply based on the claims of the founder Ngakpa Chgöyam and his supposed visions or recollections of his past lives - but in that regard they are of course not too different from many other religious groups, large and small, which are also based on the visions and claims of their founder. Yes the group is eccentric (nothing wrong with that), and many other Buddhist groups say they are "fake" (but some of those groups are themselves based on equally improbable beliefs). They may be a "cult" in the traditional sense of the term - but not in the modern pejorative sense of the term. There have never been, for instance, accusations about manipulation of members by this group, and never a hint of financial or sexual scandal (though apparently they conduct some of their ceremonies topless, which is just fine by me). Actually they seem like a nice bunch of very moral and ethical hippies (who abjure drugs and tobacco) who enjoy doing their ceremonies dressed up in colourful robes. And who knows, maybe all this does lead to some sort of enlightenment - it certainly looks far more enjoyable than most other religious trips. The only thing I've been trying to point out on the talk page of the article is that a Misplaced Pages article should conform to Misplaced Pages purposes and standards - and that sources written by the founder of the tradition or merely repeat or paraphrase what the founder claims are not independent sources and, for that Lily_W now accuses me of "hostility and religious prejudice". I don't know whether this person even has anything to do with Aro gTer - s/he actually seems to be far too uptight and attached to be associated with that group. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• All parties here need to note that I have filed an SPI here naming LilyW, JosephYon, ZuluPapa5 and Arthur chos. Montanabw 21:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue of concern is the process that took place, and its motivation. Personal views on whether a topic or source should be considered notable will always vary. That’s why wikipedia has set criteria for deciding notability. Those standards were consistently ignored in favor of personal criteria.

The long list of reliable sources in this talk page contribution was simply ignored when deletion of most of the page, and AfD nomination, took place. The page edit history from 14th January 2015 shows that Misplaced Pages standards and principles were ignored in line with a predetermined course of action (mass deletions reducing the page with its citations and sources to a stub) and outcome (AfD notice).

Objections to sources, and new discussion of parts of the article that remain deleted, have been posted to the talk page by deletion advocates only after this incident report was filed:

None of these attempts to rectify process in retrospect alter the fact that mass deletions leading to an AfD notice were decided upon and agreed privately, according to personal and religious prejudices and carried through despite input and contrary evidence from other editors. Lily W (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• WHOA! Talk about a failure of AGF! I can guarantee that there has been no "private" off-wiki conspiracy from my end, and I have no prejudices in this case, I was asked to swing by as a relatively neutral editor, I'm not even a Buddhist. This user simply fails to understand ] - you can't cite an organization's founder as a reliable, third-party source. And the deletion of material has nothing to do with the AfD; I would have put it up as an AfD with the included material as well, as it is all non-RS. Montanabw 09:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• I absoluluty state there has been no private off-wiki conspiracy, this was not a "pre-planned tag-team edit war and AfD". I'd like to also note that meatpuppetry is the subject of a user check that was filed against the filer of this Incident. I asked Montanabw if he'd look at the page because he's an respected editor who does not edit Buddhist articles much and Victoria Grayson specifically because she has edited many Buddhist pages with a hard eye and has not agreed with me (quite vociferously on several occasions). The entire point of bringing outside editors' attention to the article was to get people who were not going to agree with me, who were not of a like mind with me. Also, I'm not Buddhist! I'm not interested in Buddhism for reasons of faith. As I said, I don't think they are a cult, they're on the fringe, but they have been repeatedly described as plastic shamans. I said they were like a fringe cult but were not one. Ogress _smash! 19:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My phrase 'decided upon and agreed privately' refers to the personal user talk page discussions I linked above, when filing this report. I believe they irrefutably evidence this statement.

Regarding 'plastic shamans': you appear to be the only person to have described them in this way. Lily W (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not add "plastic shamans" to the wikipage, I described them as plastic shamans in a discussion about them. The complaint that they are white people claiming to have spiritual lineages and appointments that came to them is both common and the definition of plastic shamanism: people who claim lineage and empowerments from cultures and religions that aren't theirs without actual evidence of empowerment and lineage. The term is also most common among Native American activists and not in common use outside of those circles; Western Buddhists would call them "frauds" or something. Which they have. I'm not clear how this is some kind of damning evidence. Ogress _smash! 22:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Harrassment and hounding from users user:DMacks, user:VQuakr, user:Leyo, user:Ben and others

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

I have attempted to contribute several molecular models to Misplaced Pages. They have been continuously called into question by this group of editors, but they refuse to cite sources to back their claims that the images are "unusable" and "inappropriate" up. I have warned all of them that, due to their inability to cite sources, their actions seem based more on their emotional response to the replacement of some of their images with some of mine than based on improving Misplaced Pages. I have provided at least one very well-known citation here (http://www.springermaterials.com/docs/substance/MJRKAJZYCIWMFSIA.html#) to back the format of my images up as this reference uses the exact same format in the exact same capacity. These users (user:DMacks, user:VQuakr, user:Leyo, user:Ben and others) steadfastly refuse to provide backing for their claims, all the while bashing my cited contributions and requesting their deletion. Are citations not required? And at what point do repeated unsourced edits in the face of warnings constitute vandalism?

Lazord00d (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This was primarily a content dispute having to do with the type of molecular model diagram to be used. However, it has become a conduct dispute due to the filer's persistence, unwillingness to edit collaboratively, and unwillingness to try to reach consensus. At Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive869, a previous complaint about the filer was archived with no action, but the filer doesn't seem willing to accept that as a suggestion to work collaboratively, and has reported their reverts of his edits as vandalism. He has been editing Misplaced Pages long enough to know what vandalism is, and so should know that the use of that label for a content dispute is a blockable personal attack. Recommend a 48-hour block via the boomerang to get his attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon

Actually I believe that the "blockable offense" would be if I were to threaten another user with vandalism of that user's page by me. NOT simply reporting someone's edits as vandalism.

Also, these users began hounding me right off the bat when I published these images. My explanations and initial efforts to work with them were met with no response other than uncited "explanations" and edits. You're welcome to block me any time, it won't hurt my feelings.. but I disagree with Robert McClenon for the record. Persistence in defending oneself is hardly an offense (except here). I reported UNCITED reverts, yes, also not an offense. The users in question here have refused to work collaboratively with me, unless you consider bashing my contributions without anything to back their bashing up to be "working collaboratively". Lazord00d (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid to tell, but Lazord00d somehow reminds me of this lady. --Leyo 21:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'd imagine everyone who has ever disagreed with you fits that cartoon don't they.. after all we both know it's your way.. or no way. Lazord00d (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Lazord00d - In spite of having edited off-and-on since 2011, you are inexperienced, but you are not aware of your inexperience, and have a sense of your own "rightness", which is why you think that four editors are hounding you, rather than maybe that four editors are the consensus and you are editing against consensus. There may still be time to read the dispute resolution policy and request some form of dispute resolution, either before you are blocked or after you come off block, if you will also read the policy against personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well thanks for your (surely very qualified) judgment of me. If these 4 editors ARE the "consensus" then someone had better block me now. How very sad and unfortunate for WP.. but then again whenever you ask anyone in the world what kind of resource Misplaced Pages is in terms of quality, you always get the same answer. Maybe that lack of quality and reliability as a resource is because the "consensus" is made up of people like these.. hmmm. I'm going with definitely, yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazord00d (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the format of chemical pages is by a pre agreed MoS (Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Chemistry), then maybe you should be starting a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemistry with a view to expanding the MoS to include 3d structures - then you would get a proper discussion with plenty of editors and a true consensus would be obtained. I would add that if you think that Springer is so correct, then what do you say to http://www.biotopics.co.uk/JmolApplet/paracetamol1.html - where there are no alternating single/double bonds, just C atoms attached to 3 others. Ronhjones  21:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't see that at work unfortunately, we have java blocked.. I'll check it out later, but most likely the explanation is that there is more than one "correct" way of drawing 3d models. Lazord00d (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is why we have a manual of style - to gave the reader a consistent theme, otherwise it could confuse those with less knowledge of chemistry. Ronhjones  00:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I had no idea about the existence of a MoS here. Attempting to alleviate confusion was my initial goal and has been since I've been a member here.. but I've had to beat back little bands of editor-buddies before so I know it's a common phenomenon here for these little groups to try to control a topic. I get REAL loud when I suspect that is going on and I've got a lot of reasons to think that here. Lazord00d (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You say that you had no ide of the existence of a MoS. If you look at the top of your user talk page there is a welcome message which has been there since April 2012. There are 5 bullet points, one of which is "Manual of Style". If there are others among the useful links provided there which you haven't yet read, now would be a good time to read them. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh... Lazord00d (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I got a notification on this. Not much to add as the edits speak for themselves; please ping me if anyone specifically wants a response or clarification on anything. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

So... I mean this blocking you speak of.. is it even a real thing? Because according to you guys I should be blocked several times over.. Oh well the joke continues!!

Lazord00d (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose we should block Lazord00d right way, at this point, he is obviously NOTTHERE to build an encyclopedia anymore. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh.. sucks how a narrow-minded clique of control freaks (control over a topic on an iffy at best resource website so yay for them!!) can make it so a person never wants to post anything of value here again. The nice thing for me is that should I be blocked it's absolutely no loss for me, I've contributed much more to wp in the years I've been here than it has to my existence I can say that for sure.. nope, instead it's all loss for wikipedia. I'm sure it's not the first time someone with a lot to offer has been soured to the point of considering wp hopeless. In the world of actual science there is an obligation to cite references for data, but not here. Not one single cited rebuttal to supercede my position has been presented. Yet I'm expected to adjust my contributions (which I and others know are sufficient) based on these claims without anything to back them up, OR be blocked for calling them out as ridiculous bullshit. That's rich, and totally provides an environment conducive to unbiased science. (<= that'd be sarcasm) Lol by all means, block away! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazord00d (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be ignorant of why people are proposing to block you, it is because of your uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Weegeerunner (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean where I vented frustration by calling out bs? Yep for sure guilty as charged.. Lazord00d (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior on wikipedia is not acceptable under any circumstances. That does not justify anything Weegeerunner (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't say it as justification. It's an admission that I'm a human being.. but you are no doubt without flaw yourself just like all these editors. I get it.. no citation needed lol Lazord00d (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Than own up to it and stop attacking people. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh... Lazord00d (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, the usual posters at this board have been very patient for several days, or the usual impatient posters at this board have been somewhere else. (A few other disruptive editors at this board have also been oddly ignored. This board seems to be in an easy-going mood.) If you, User:Lazord00d, really think that Misplaced Pages is such a deeply corrupt place, why do you continue this non-dialogue? Either take the advice of multiple editors and try to work collaboratively rather than be certain of your own rightness, or just leave Misplaced Pages alone if it is worthless. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would I question my "rightness" in this case, when I've cited backing for my position? Doesn't really seem proper to do so. On the contrary, it seems like I'm being strong-armed (or an attempt at it anyway lol). I am certain of my "rightness" here because I've researched all this before and cited similar examples presently in use as references. Not to mention why would I make it so easy for wikipedia to be rid of me? This "non-dialog" is far more entertaining.

Lazord00d (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The original poster has now begun discussion at the chemistry MOS talk page about molecular structure diagrams, which appears to mean that he is now trying to be collaborative. I would suggest waiting a few days before hitting him with his own boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ayatollah Khamenei's & Son's Net Worth

Please see following edits and as it appears that User:Qizilbash123 (with an indefinite block) is trying to disrupt again this article by edit-waring and making unfounded personal attacks. Thanks for your immediate action. 67.83.63.86 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI to investigate. Bosstopher (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the troll is back. Besides that would be nice to have this article locked down so only registered users can edit it. My 2 cents as always. 67.83.63.86 (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Soka Gakkai page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elemential1

Basicallyyes

Findemnow

TokyoSunrise

LovLove

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

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

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

arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do agree with the above editors on two points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sums up your emotionally biased predisposition toward the sources.

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

Request template namespace topic ban for Sardanaphalus

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

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

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

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

• Support topic ban. I had noticed that Sardanaphalus has the wrong approach to editing templates before this report. A minor example is seen in the history at Template:Hegelianism where Sardanaphalus is editing the live template as if it were a contentious article which requires edit warring and pointy edit summaries to overcome POV pushers. Bold editing is one thing, but templates really do require care and collaboration. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Sardanaphalus can seem quite productive, but he has trouble collaborating. He has very strong ideas about how things should be done and as such, he doesn't take ctiticism very well. That makes it very hard to fix his mistakes. When he does acknowledge an (obvious) error, he will often revert to his own established methods. His layout always based to fit on his own screen (1680 wide), and in such a way that it becomes illegible on smaller screens. He uses and creates templates like {{!-!}} and {{!-!!}} that are completely redundant to wikimarkup and make table/template editing exponentially harder, yet at the same time acuses experienced template editors of "thinking like progrmammers". I would be a good thing if Sardanaphalus would experience Misplaced Pages more as a reader... on small screens. Or at the least, he could do with some coaching. -- ] {{talk}} 09:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Please take a look at User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 24#Template:Aquarium. Not too long ago, I reverted an edit by Sardanaphalus at that template, and they reached out to me at my user talk, and our subsequent discussion was very collaborative and improved the template. As a single anecdote, it seems to me to be contrary to what I'm reading here. I do however recognize that Sardanaphalus does an awful lot of template editing and that this is something where consensus is very important. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • He used to inquire about my reverts, and I would answer best I could, even though he should have brought up any issue on their respective template talk pages instead. However, any advice I give him is simply ignored or very soon forgoten. -- ] {{talk}} 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Sardanaphalus has a habit of reformatting template code in such a manner that makes comparison by diff very difficult. Consider this edit from earlier today: the effective change is the addition of two {{{colheaderstyle|}}} but whilst the first of those is obvious, the second is disguised by the newline wrapped in <!-- --> markers which makes it look like some code has been removed and some very different code has been added. It has reached the point where I have refused to process their protected edit requests because it is so difficult to determine if their desired "minor" change truly is minor. More at Template talk:Shortcut#Protected edit request on 4 December 2014, Template talk:Information#Navbox version and Template talk:Div col#Code layout. They also nag me for not processing edits that I disagree with, see User talk:Redrose64#Template:Information, User talk:MSGJ#Advice, please..? and (by proxy) User talk:Edokter#Template talk:Div col. Sometimes it seems that a strange effect somewhere is the result of a Sardanaphalus edit - but it takes some time to trace it, see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Linebreaks in infoboxes. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You may also note from today's editing that his use of the sandbox is not very effective; he seemingly moves every edit to the live template immediately, negating the purpose of the sandbox. If the transclusion count is high, this will unnecessarily strain the job queue, and in cases where he does not use the sandbox at all, may introduce disruptive errors on live articles. -- ] {{talk}} 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive/trolling account Cyntiamaspian

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

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

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

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

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

Cwobeel

Can someone protect Steven Emerson and revert Cwobeel's edit in which he uses a Think Progress cited reference (in another more reliable source) to call a person a bigot (Islamophobe). This is being discussed on the talk page and WP:BLPN#Steven Emerson. I have no desire to edit war with users who want to denigrate a living person with sources like "Salon" and "Think Progress". They do not meet the high quality requirements of BLP and I've explained this, but Cwobeel believes it is acceptable because "it is sourced". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Complete mis-characterization by ChrisGualtieri. Please see related discussions atWP:RS/N#Cambridge_University_Press_and_Washington_Post_on_Islamophobia_in_Steven_Emerson_article and WP:BLP/N#Steven_Emerson for context. ChrisGualtieri has been reverted by NeilN (talk · contribs) and others. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Forum shopping by ChrisGualtieri. There are already three discussion on this, two at well watched noticeboards. --NeilN 04:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm requesting admin action because of both of your actions and the fact that Cwobeel reinserted a defamatory label on something that was actively being discussed under BLP concerns. I answered a help request and encountered this - so I am requesting admin action to let the good faith discussion run its course. The fact that the material is supposed to be removed during the discussion is what I ask for. If you have any confidence and sense of process then you would have heeded my request in the first place. Considering another editor asked for help and it concerns that material - this is not unusual, but your actions are. Both you and Cwobeel have taken to deliberately reinserting a bigotry label on a living person sourced to a label cited to Think Progress. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I urge admins looking at this to look at the discussions at various noticeboards. Also, ChrisGualtieri has falsely accused Cwobeel of inserting defamatory material before. --NeilN 04:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine do as you please - I'm done with BLPs and dealing with either of you. I answered an edit request and I am feeling bullied over what should have been a non-issue. It has not been a pleasant experience. I don't want any part of your battleground behavior and I am disgusted by your hostility and actions. Close this and bother me no more. Neither of you are welcome on my pages and all responses will be unread. Claims of bigotry and criminal wrongdoing should not be edit warred in while they are discussed. Good day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a similar thing I noticed but we already had this same song and dance dealing with members of the anime and manga wikiproject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• @ChrisGualtieri: I'm not clear why you keep claiming that others are using ThinkProgress as a source. In the edit you cite, the cited source in question is the Cambridge Companion to American Islam, not ThinkProgress. I'm concerned that you're not accurately representing the dispute. MastCell  05:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I can answer that, Inside the book, there is a footnote after the cited sentence which reads "On Steve Emerson, See "meet an islamophobia network 'expert': Steven Emerson" and gives a think progress URL. Since the book gives a think progress website as a "see also" citation, ChrisGualtieri has determined that therefore we should consider Think Progress the source, rather than the Cambridge University Press. Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Aye - though MastCell does have a point. It is actually the book which is saying "Islamophobe Steven Emerson", but this is all we get. I think that is pretty weak given that it was widely reported and theorized that the attack had been undertaken by Islamic terrorists. The Oklahoma City bombing cites three books for this simple and verifiable claim. Context is context, but I suppose I overstepped because it is an attribution that certainly had merit at the time. People can make gaffs, but I think the United States Congressional committee which has cited and used his work and Emerson's own statements are certainly more relevant. If you are going to label someone without any reasoning or anything - that is certainly not a proper source for a BLP. It wouldn't last at FA and it shouldn't be reinserted during a discussion on the label - which was not even started by me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a bad judgement call by me to bring it here or even deal with Cwobeel or NeilN. It is because I am far stricter on BLP policies than the average editor that my strictness is unfavorable. I scanned High Beam and found no high quality sources calling Emerson an islamophobe - instead I saw repeated citations as an expert and numerous (as to be expected) coverage of "gaffs" and such. Emerson is a divisive figure, but I do not believe our biography needs to be equally divisive or so embroiled in labels from trivial mentions. Biographies need to be handled with extreme care and must be gotten right - WP:BLP encourages the demand for high quality sources, but identifying and evaluating the source is more difficult. I find it unsuitable to bring up Emerson in tangent and use a Google Book searched string without any depth to fulfill the desire to slap a manner of bigotry on a person. If no other high quality and reputable source does it - we should not either. And that's where I stand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So the Cambridge University Press doesn't produce high quality sources? What on earth would you consider a quality BLP source? Coffeepusher (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking you need to revisit WP:RS, and tell us exactly why Cambridge University Press is not a high quality source for wikipedia using our actual policies. Your rage quit was predictable, and this martyrdom is interesting but your swan song has gone on for four posts now on two different boards, so since you appear to be actively engaging the discussion, you are going to have to show me where Cambridge University Press source violates WP:RS, because right now the WP:RSN and the WP:BLPN has not supported that accusation. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

as the WP:BLPN pointed out WP:WELLKNOWN actually refutes your claim that the word Islamophobe itself is in violation of WP:BLP. We have produced a Cambridge University Press book (which you keep saying is Think Progress), a Washington Post piece (which you called a blog until your claim was taken to WP:RSN after which you quickly backtracked on calling the Washington Post article an unreliable source), each of which document the fact that Steven Emerson has been accused of producing Islamophobia. Every source that is brought to you is immediately discredited, in these cases based on misrepresentation and blatantly calling a reliable publication a "blog" just so you could get away with calling the source bad and keeping criticism out of the Steven Emerson article. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the problem - you look at the publisher and go "yep okay!" and you stop there. Emerson is not covered in any detail at all. According to Google search he is only mentioned once in the body, once for the Think Press citation and once in the index. And the entirety of the content is

"Congressman King cited Islamophobes Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh) and...."

That's it - for the entire book. Not another mention or aspect of Emerson and it has to use a Think Progress source for that twisted gem. I'd be willing to consider it being a suitable source if actually discussed Emerson more than citing Think Progress which was itself cherry-picking. Obviously Emerson ain't so discredited when his group and work was being cited by the United States Congress and was cited on a panel consisted of former Ambassador Dore Gold, Steven Emerson, and Jonathan Winer in 2003. Or in mentioned cases in 2001. Official meetings in 2005. Since that "gaff" Emerson has "testified and briefed Congress dozens of times on terrorist financing and operational networks of al-Qaeda". He is a recognized expert by the United States Government A single sentence which is so thoroughly disproven by over a decade of continued work and council at the highest levels of the United States Government - discredited? Hardly. The man may make mistakes, but he is not the bigot or disgrace that trivial mention makes. Is that trivial mention in a book really acceptable to call him a bigot - when it cannot even spare a full sentence about his actual credentials? The answer is a resounding no. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS contains WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content." WP:RSOPINION would also apply, but the fact that no high-quality source that discusses Emerson in detail labels him as a bigot is probably a good clue]. You are defensive and entrenching over what is less than a single sentence about Emerson in a whole book. That is the very definition of trivial coverage and certainly should make editors question whether it is proper and accurate to cite it for an accusation of bigotry. Certainly seems to be a WP:BLP issue of proper weight and relevancy. But whatever this rant has gone on long enough. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The claim for "Islamaphobe" is sourced to TP in the book. That is how books work. Having what one would believe is a reliable source repeat a claim from an unreliable source does not make that claim reliable. In any case, this is also a question of weight. Most people don't get any attention at all unless some people start crying and whining about what they said. A number of editors here seem like their sole purpose is to troll for negative crap to add to a person's BLP without any consideration for weight. The results are BLP's that are little more than bitch-fests against the subject by the perpetually maligned. Coffee, your last sentence is a red herring. You can't prove the negative. Arzel (talk)

you guy's keep making those statements that we are violating every single policy you can think of, what did the uninvolved editors at the WP:BLPN and WP:RSN say?Coffeepusher (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

also, please show us where in wikipedia's policy we determine the reliability of a source through a three step 1. find the source 2. find the "see also" footnote, 3. determine that source. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you @Arzel: - Cwobeel keeps adding trivial mentions just labeling Emerson as a bigot in sources with little to no care. Weight, depth and coverage of sources are all something that needs to be evaluated and the Fear Inc. report is that one which carries the "fomenting Islamophobia" as a valid citation. If you have pages dedicated to Emerson and his work being "Islamophobic" then you use that source, not some trivial mention of "Islamophobe Emerson" from a passing mention. Though I cannot tell if one user is being serious or sarcastic with the statement:
  • Red herring of enormous proportions. Check the sources and stop making misleading statements. The material about Islamophobia is sourced to books published by reputable houses. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• A red herring misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue. Arguably that would be pointing out how you just restored three unsourced articles about Adam Sandler, Susan Sarandon and Nicolas Cage with a single source to IMDb when it was at BLPN. I assert you do not understand WP:BLP and offer these three terrible edits as evidence. Perhaps AE would be better because self-published user-generated content is not an acceptable or reliable source for a BLP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Are these, in fact, directly relevant to either the specific disputed sources or the article(s) you're complaining about? Or are you, as seems on the surface, throwing whatever mud (or mud-like material) you can get your hands on in hopes it'll stick? Because it really really looks like the latter. --Calton | Talk 04:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri is exhibiting WP:HARASS behavior, with multiple noticeboard posting, including this gem in which he argues about filing an AE report against me for using IMDb as a source in innocuous list of actors' awards. Really annoying and childish behavior.- Cwobeel (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Calton - I apologize - the reference was pointing out what would be a distraction. I did not intend it to be a continuance. Both of the original issues presented here have been resolved and I've brought a related issue (see above) concerning this editor to Arbitration Enforcement. I should have kept it streamlined and short as both issues were resolved many hours ago by an admin and other editors who addressed it. Again, could this be closed as resolved? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of paid contributions

I have been involved in a discussion on Talk:Kurds, involving the use of the word "Iranian" to describe the group. I have attempted to make the case that the long-standing consensus appears to be somewhat biased, but that a complete reversal of the consensus doesn't seem to be representative of the reliable sources. This lead to a disagreement with Bawer1. This user engaged in personal attacks against another editor, DeCausa, in the discussion, and was temporarily blocked for the attack (plus edit warring and threats of meat puppetry). Soon after their block expired, they made this accusation that I am biased, and must be paid for my contributions. I rebuked those accusations, as I am a long-time contributor, who gladly volunteers my work on the project, just as all of us do. I have tried to be objective in this discussion, taking all comments into account, but I take accusations of bad faith seriously. I thought I would request a WP:3O, but it was recommended that the issue be brought to a noticeboard, since the disagreement on both of our parts is about user conduct. I don't know what the proper course of action is here, but I would appreciate some input as to how to redirect the discussion back to the topic, instead of ad hominem arguments. Thank you in advance. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Recommend at least a One-month Block - User:Bawer1 is just coming off a two-week block for personal attacks at this same talk page, and has now made the allegation of paid editing, which is a very serious aspersion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bawer1: You decided to comment on my talk page instead of here, but I am posting your comment here to be included in this discussion. This was my response. —Josh3580_talk/hist 02:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The personal attacks continue. I still recommend a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, User:Bawer1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a relatively new user with a strong POV. He's now had policy explained to him in some detail both at Talk:Kurds#Kurds and on his user talk page, as well as just coming off a two week block for edit-warring over several months, personal attacks and threating meat puppetry. There's no sign of his changing his ways - so I don't think it's newbie "overenthusiasm". WP:NOTHERE. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Unbelievable. You two acts as if I am edit warring or something. What is this nonsense about "personal attack" as if I cursed at you, bullied you, or physically hit you. You know it's amazing to find out that once you expose someone they try to get rid of you. I have exposed all of DeCausa and Josh3580's accusations against me. DeCausa and Josh3580 had nothing left to say to me, so they have decided to get me into a one month block. For all of those looking at this comment, all you have to go is look at the Kurdish talk page, and look at the last comment that I made. You will then realize who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor. Josh3580 has lied to me countless times. First he told me that he does not base his decsions on facts, but rather on a consensus. I then manage to share my point of view of removing the term "Iranian" on the Kurdish talk page, which I got MORE people to agree with. Yet there are still no changes. Then I ask Josh why there is no changes and he says that the "consenus is biased. Now what do you want me to believe that Josh is not biased after that statement? It is my right to believe this!! I have been arguing with these two knuckle heads for a month, and they have not been able to create any solution, but only attack every remark I make, and try to get rid of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I've drifted over from another conversation on this page. I just wanted to point out that aside from totally ignoring the policy on personal attacks, in your post here you touched a hot button by effectively accusing someone of paid editing. That is a very serious accusation, and it's not the kind of thing we throw around, as undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by the Wikimedia Terms of Use. Lastly, I doubt that anyone here has an opinion on the underlying issue, this is merely a commentary on the tactics you are employing. Coretheapple (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Pallavi Kiran user page improper material

User is writing an essay or some kind of material not belonging on a user page. Material was removed and a user warning given some time ago. He persists. I do not want to delete it altogether without somebody else's intervention, not to look like I'm the only one and I'm fixated on him, but this should be looked at. I also considered moving the text to a subpage but that would imply the writings are ok for the encyclopedia, which I don't think they are. Would another admin please take a look and comment/act on it? -- Alexf 11:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the page per WP:CSD#U5 and will explain WP:NOTWEBHOST to the user and offer to email the text if needed. JohnCD (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help JohnCD. -- Alexf 13:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil IP

I have been dealing with a rather uncivil IP today (195.89.48.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) who has been edit warring and refusing to engae in meaningful discussion. His latest input to the project was to leave the message "Cunt" Dr. Blofeld's talk page. This was after an earlier request to remain civil and is not acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've called them out for that specific edit with the level 3 warning template, stating that such comments are not permissible. The IP seems to have gone quiet after that, for the last half-hour. However, any further uncivil comment would be grounds, in my eyes, for a block. —C.Fred (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My initial thoughts were the Best known for IP but he's never had a beef with infoboxes and he's never used an IP starting with 195. Blofeld's a grown-up chap who can take the "c" word on the chin, so I'd just shrug it off unless he starts edit warring on Stanley Holloway again. Or, since he's the only IP interested in the article for the last few months, a semi-protect would at least force a discussion without requiring a straight banhammer. Ritchie333 14:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I have strong suspicions that this is the same individual as 195.89.48.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who has edit warred over IBs on Holloway (and others) before and who has previously been blocked for "harassment, trolling, edit warring". - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User page the may be violating Polemic

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

On January 20th, I came across the user page of Tolinjr, he had a screed on it that violated polemic, as well as link to a blog he set up specifically to denigrate Misplaced Pages and it's users. As it violated Polemic , I removed the screed . I left a note on his page explaining why this was removed . He proceeded to replace it with a pointy note in my direction , which I did not respond to at all. This morning, I received a note from Carrite explaining that I should not have removed the polemic statement from his page, rather I should have nominated it for MFD. Carrite also then placed an his talk page for having the screed removed to begin with.

I am requesting more eyes on Tolinjr's page and consensus on whether or not polemic statements can be removed. Far as I know, they can be removed and the page in question (user page or not ) does not need to go to MFD. So what's the consensus. By the way, I've advised Carrite that I will not touch the talk page following his revert as well (no sense in stirring more drama  :) ) KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 16:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about consensus, but personally I'd say leave it be, and find something more important to worry about - it is an obscure user page that hardly anyone will ever look at, unless people draw attention to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not replace the text of the User Page ... it was replaced by another very senior editor who disagreed with this editor. This is not a truthful account of what occurred. Furthermore, you can find the exact transcript on my Talk page (I have removed it, but still available in 'View History'). I would also ask that you refer to discussions that took place between Kosh and two other, more senior, editors regarding this topic on their Talk pages. Furthermore, please note that this editor has already been disciplined for manipulating editor material (please see his User Page). Final point, how can any thing I say be any more polemic than Wiki-sponsored userboxes such as ...

This user believes that movie stars and celebrities should stick to what they're good at, not become politicians.

User:Secret Saturdays/Palin unfit for presidency--Tolinjr (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's no such thing as a senior editor :) KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 17:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I rest my case. --Tolinjr (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the place to promote political beliefs. An image of Palin with a line through it is bordering on an attack. Chillum 17:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that stuff is borderline extreme. Is it time for a "purge" of stuff like that? I happen to have a pretty low opinion of Sarah Palin's fitness for the presidency, but I don't "know for a fact" that she's unfit, nor does anyone else. Almost any president you can name has been considered "unfit" by a large number of people. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say that we should consistently remove any soapboxing from user pages as we see it. We should not be permissive of political soapboxing no matter how unfit Palin is for president. Chillum 18:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree, with the proviso that some people use their user pages as only a form of soapboxing for themselves, and if the editor involved is a decent contributor, that can probably be allowed. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a US Flag on my user page. Is that "soapboxing"? I would make a distinction between "positive" and "negative" soapboxing. Like the difference between "I love the UK" vs. "I hate Liechtenstein" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Before this discussion goes too far off topic, it might be useful to point out that those two userboxes were not on the user page in question when it was blanked. They are being used by Tolinjr to make a point (paraphrasing: "if these userboxes are OK, why wasn't my user page?"). The answer to this is:

• The user boxes are not "Wiki-sponsored userboxes", they just exist and no one has deleted them.
• The user page is OK. It was not a polemic, it just contained criticism of how Misplaced Pages works. We've seriously jumped the shark if such criticism of WP, with no references to any specific editors, are "disruptive".
• The userboxes should be MFD'd if you don't like them, rather than removed from every user page you see them on. If I was forced at gunpoint to care, I'd probably vote to nuke the Palin one at least (and I am not a fan), but I probably wouldn't vote because...
• Let's try to make a more concerted effort to worry about stuff that actually matters.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• While I know the user box issue is far to controversial for CSD, any other page that existed only to disparage a politician would be G10'd. The Palin user box serves no other purpose. Chillum 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• There are a lot of things wrong with this case but as Floquenbeam suggests, we have more important things to do. I suggest we close this without doing anything while leaving both KoshVorlon and Tolinjr to reflect on what they have done wrong. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Floquenbeam for the helpful clarification. Criticism of Misplaced Pages could be argued to be an attempt to improve Misplaced Pages so I agree this can be closed without action. Chillum 18:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and for the record, I didn't remove the userboxes, only the screed. Thanks Floquenbeam! KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 18:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I realize that now, and I apologize to you and Tolinjr for that misunderstanding. Chillum 18:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:NoSarahPalin.jpg needs to be deleted, not the least of reasons being that it is claimed to be the work of the US government. I very much doubt the US government is in the business of drawing big red diagonal lines through their official works about US politicians. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It is being discussed at MfD right now: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Secret Saturdays/Palin unfit for presidency. Chillum 18:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It also omits the "personality rights warning" which exists on the original. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Tolinjr's user boxes. As for the Misplaced Pages rant, it's nothing unusual. I don't see "User xyz is a jerk" or anything like that there. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs - The debate wasn't his userboxes. The debate was the body of his user page. When questioned on this, Tolinjr's response was basically "Why is my user page not okay, but these userboxes are okay?" He was just using the two userboxes above as an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type rationale for defending his user page, his userboxes in particular weren't questioned. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

When an OP brings something up, it can lead to other things. That Palin image has been sitting there for at least 4 years, and should have been zapped immediately. Shame on us at Misplaced Pages. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User Daniellagreen: Requesting intervention with a problem editor

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

I am having difficulties with a highly combative problem editor. Despite repeated attempts to WP:DISENGAGE and encouraging other editors who have had similar problems with her to do so (here), Daniellagreen seems to be unwilling to drop the stick. This is an editor with a history of problematic editing, specifically creating articles and editing existing ones with POV and promotional objectives. A glance at her talk page will reveal extensive discussion of this problem with other highly experienced editors, whose advice and counsel she has repeatedly rejected. She continues to attempt to migrate the discussion from her page to others, despite repeated requests not to. (See her talk page and mine.) And unfortunately there have been some pretty extreme abuses of AGF which I have tried to ignore, but have reached a point where it needs to be addressed. At this stage I am unsure how to proceed, but clearly the editor does not respond well to criticism of any kind. To be clear I am not requesting any specific sanctions here, though I will defer to the community on this. The editor has made positive contributions to the project and I believe is capable of doing so in the future. But this is just getting out of hand and given her response to my request to cease communication, any further response from me is extremely unlikely to be productive. Perhaps a strongly worded warning from an Admin is in order. Again I leave this to the community. I encourage interested editors to peruse her talk page and its history, and feel free to contact some of the other editors who have also been trying, without success, to offer some constructive counseling. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: This page is titled Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. What is the specific nature and location of the incident which prompted this discussion? John Carter (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue has been ongoing but the immediate prompt for this post is here. I also note that Bishonen has made an intervention. Perhaps this will solve the problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I am satisfied with Bishonen's intervention and am content to let the matter go. Anyone wandering by please feel free to close the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem with User:RGloucester

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

User:RGloucester seems to have forgotten to be WP:CIVIL over at XFD, As show by the following diffs he seems to have become inflamed by the fact that people are voting to keep Draft:Cultural Marxism

1

2

3

Can an admin please help calm him down? RetΔrtist (разговор) 01:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I will not be calmed down. RGloucester — ☎ 01:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that yelling and insulting people are going to sway them to your point of view? Please step away for a while. The issue that you're getting worked up about is just not that important.- MrX 02:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Not important, Mr X? How can you say that? Is the poisoning of the encylopaedia not important? Is the abuse of the encylopaedia by soap campaigns not important? Is the flouting of processes and policies by cowboy administrators not important? If people don't listen when I write properly, I will write improperly. I will do what is necessary to make clear the reality of the situation. To be clear, there is an ongoing catastrophe. Editors are circumventing all usual processes to ensure that their soap will prevail. As an example, we have one particular administrator who continually raises his administrator status in content disputes, as if he is some kind of high-ranking general of the encylopaedia, who unilaterally undeleted something deleted by a community AfD without a deletion review, and then engaged in the content dispute that led to its deletion. We have Mr Wales, of course, who disrupted these processes from the beginning, and encouraged the above administrator to act like a cowboy. The above administrator continued with a frivolous AN thread because he doesn't like his actions being questioned, for instance. This is absolutely unacceptable, in every form. It has been unacceptable from day one. I'm not even going to go into why this article was deleted. If people want to contest the deletion, they should file a deletion review. They won't, but they should. Whatever the case, this has been a farce from the start. RGloucester — ☎ 02:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be on a one person crusade for some bureaucratic ideal that doesn't exist here. Why wind yourself up so, when it won't make a bit of difference in the end? Let it go. Let someone else worry about the "poisoning of the encyclopedia", and you go work on some other area of the project that can bring you some joy. - MrX 02:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here for "joy", I'm here to write an encylopaedia. I will not allow this farce to pass. RGloucester — ☎ 02:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"I will not allow this farce to pass" .... Doesn't really look like you have much of a choice ....., Why not edit an article you enjoy and just forget all of this? –Davey2010 02:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand the concept of "enjoyment". I do what is necessary, and only that. I will the stop this farce, I will stop these soap campaigns, I will stop the off-Misplaced Pages harassment campaigns, I will stop this poisoning of the encylopaedia, this misuse of sources, and this utter contempt for the rigorous intellect of man. RGloucester — ☎ 02:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You know you have no actual power to do all of that by yourself - your actions are actually deafening the ears of those who would support you and alienating those who already did. This is self-destructive and less than martyrdom. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The time for rationality has passed. If reason was effective, the article would've remained deleted. Mr Wales would not've twice interceded on behalf of off-Misplaced Pages soap campaigns, ensuring a destruction of the encylopaedia. Misuse of sources would not be tolerated. Cowboy administrators would not be tolerated. Now is the time for irrationality, the favourite tool of a true human. If only the irrational will see, so be it. I trust them. I cannot allow this to pass. I will not allow these people to do what they've done, and get away with it. RGloucester — ☎ 02:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you are implying that you may become POINTy, am i correct? --RetΔrtist (разговор) 02:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is impossible for someone to do something that they do not agree with, unless they're weak-minded. I'm not weak-minded. I will protect the encylopaedia, as I have been doing for months. Given your certain propensity, I don't suppose that's something you understand. RGloucester — ☎ 02:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a "point of view". If you are willing to ignore the flagrant corruption of Misplaced Pages processes, policies, and guidelines, it is you who need a "timeout". RGloucester — ☎ 03:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) East, that's not very nice. He's not insulting anyone, he just seems very insistent that deleted revisions can't be undeleted without DR. But we're already having a discussion about whether the past revisions of the article should be available. Demanding another discussion simply to debate the rather mundane undeletion of uncontroversial past contributions that build into the current draft, when they've already been undeleted anyway, seems to me like an overly bureaucratic interpretation of policy, and in the end is something like forum shopping. The discussion is ongoing and unimpeded. Shii (tock) 03:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

They are not "uncontroversial past contributions". They are poisonous, which is why they were deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 03:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is some poisonous info in there, shouldn't that be a job for oversight? Shii (tock) 03:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a more subtle, but more deadly poison. RGloucester — ☎ 03:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You're really going to have to be more specific. What exactly are you alleging is going on here? What's the context? What's this "soap campaign" you're referencing? GraniteSand (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are not familiar with this saga, there is very little I can do. I hardly wish to relive it. RGloucester — ☎ 03:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Dude, help me help you. GraniteSand (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom in the news

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

It looks like ArbCom's proposed decisions in the "GamerGate" case are getting some media attention (Misplaced Pages Purged a Group of Feminist Editors Because of Gamergate). Which seems appropriate, because perusing it, the proposed sanctions look like pure B.S. --Calton | Talk 04:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The more you are involved in things that are reported on the news the more you realize that accuracy is not the prime directive of journalists. Chillum 04:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Harassment, vandalism, and potential sockpuppets

Hello, I'm an artist listed on the Red Bull House of Art wiki page. Recently I noticed the page had been vandalized with handicap jokes and incorrect information. Ringcluder, an unrgistered user, was the person behind the edits. I tried to undo it when I was not registered here, but another user, Corruption Watchchihuahua, changed the revisions back almost immediately. Ringcluder then left a vague threat on my talk page after I registered, which prompted apologies by other users including Corruption. Strangely enough, Corruption then called for Red Bull's page to be deleted. His tone was strangely condescending.

I thought it was weird and decided to note the harassment on the page so other users would be aware that there was more to the story, but the user Truth to the Forth Power began to talk down to me in the same way Ringcluder did. I suspect there is some sockpuppetry going on here. I also think I might know this person in real life, because some accusations have flown around away from this Misplaced Pages page. This is more than just pranking. Someone is actually playing games with me.

I am requesting assistance in clearing up the matter--is there an alternate account at work here? And is there anything to be done about this harassment? Thank you for your help. I'm new and don't understand Misplaced Pages very well. Kgpaints (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am concerned about the similarities in names for the users Corruption Watchrottweiler and Corruption Watchchihuahua. The names give off the impression that they are the same user and I don't offhand see anything that clarifies the names at all. In other words, there's nothing to explain why (if it's one person) there are two accounts or why they are working together, how they work, and so on. I'm also slightly concerned about the names in general since they sort of give off the impression that they're here to further a specific viewpoint, something that isn't alleviated by posts like this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Kgpaints, if you're worried about WP:SOCKPUPPETRY (one person using multiple accounts in violation of guidelines) then you can always request that a sockpuppet investigation (WP:SPI) gets opened. I'm still researching the allegations of harassment, but there is somewhat enough to have a suspicion of sockpuppetry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• So the question is: do you want a SPI opened? I (or someone else) can help you with the process, but we will need to have a more complete list of the accounts that you believe are the sockpuppets and we'll need specific edits to show where you believe that they are the same person. Also for the purposes of the harassment, it would also help if we had links to the specific edits and comments that believe are harassment/trolling. I do see the messages on your talk page and on the AfD, but you kind of give off the impression that this has been going on beyond that and we'd need some links to that as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for answering. Okay, that sounds good. All the names I listed above in my original post are the ones I think are sockpuppets of each other. I don't think anyone else is involved. The talk page, Ringcluder's message was the only one I took as harassment, and as far as Corruption is concerned, him suggesting/opening the Red Bull deletion page was a possible example to me of someone getting angry that harassment had not gone their way and they wanted to flounce. As far as Truth to the Fourth Power is concerned, he replies to me towards the top of the deletion talk page. I can't seem to link to his comment there but it's right under the harassment note. Kgpaints (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as actions beyond Misplaced Pages, the problem is I suspect this vandal is someone I know in real life. Unfortunately, it involves a very delicate situation--I am one of the current Red Bull artists, and I don't want to move forward with anything irl until I get the person I suspect to admit he's the one behind this, or I find exact evidence. Right now, all there is are just some convenient circumstances. Blowing this wide open would result in someone's name getting tossed into the mud, so I can't name any names or link rl things right now. Kgpaints (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• If it's a case of real world issues and you don't think that you can name the person, you can contact Misplaced Pages via e-mail about this. I'll try to find the appropriate e-mail for this and post it. I'll get the SPI started for you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• On a side note, I don't see enough to really suspect User:Truth to the Fourth Power as being a sock, but I may possibly mention them in the SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• I've decided against listing them. I just don't see enough there to really include them. They responded a lot at the AfD, but I don't think that it's enough to where I'd really suspect them as being a sock. I'd need a little more to really give good evidence of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Kgpaints:, I've opened the SPI here. As far as providing information about the off-Misplaced Pages harassment that you believe shows that this is a specific person editing, you can contact either the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org or the Volunteer Response Team at info-en-vwikimedia.org. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: Thank you again for your help. I'll leave this end to the editors. As far as the real life half, it's a delicate situation but I believe this person will out themselves. I'll contact the Arbitration Committee. You've been a great help! Kgpaints (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW this IP 92.20.78.155 (talk · contribs) Just altered Kgpaints post. MarnetteD|Talk 18:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Attacks at David Ross (businessman)

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

The SPA Andcarr (talk · contribs) has returned to David Ross (businessman) and is once again engaging in some dodgy behaviour. They were reported here a couple of weeks ago. I get the impression that they are an aggrieved shareholder of a business that Ross ran and which has collapsed. They've been blocked before and, btw, I reported myself at COIN but got no takers. I could use some help, please. - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've provided a "no personal attacks" warning too, so he now has one from someone independent of the conflict, and I've added a few words of suggestion at his talk page. I got a shouty message at my talk page in response, but at least I tried. Squinge (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems you have been downgraded to a mere Wikiwomble now, which seems like an unintended accolade seeing as Wombles clean up other people's trash and turn it into something useful :-) Squinge (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Reminds me of when I hacked into my cassette-based Sinclair ZX-81 BASIC interpreter to change "syntax error" to read "stupid error". If nothing else, I really would appreciate it if someone could review what I've been doing at the article and its talk page. I still maintain that I have no COI and, for the record, I've not spoken to the people whom I name in my report since making it. - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just a note that Andcarr (talk · contribs) is being rather belligerent on my talk page, and I've had to threaten him with a complaint of harassment to try to get him to stop repeatedly shouting his demands at me. Squinge (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat

• We're heading into the realm of legal threats now. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've put a subheading on this bit, so that it might attract the attention of an admin who's perusing the headings. Squinge (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for now, though it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up being indef. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP-violating single-purpose account with a grudge, making legal threats and attacking other editors? I can see no possible reason for not going for an indef straight away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What is done is done and we can live in hope that they get the message. They were working in tandem with Saskia2309, so things could get interesting. - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

User:AntanO

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

The editor User:AntanO seems to be a destructive editor who violates the Right to know of the Misplaced Pages users. To hide his destructive behavior, he has blocked bots applying some templates like bots|deny=DPL bot. When I observed his contribution on Misplaced Pages it was clear to me that he is acting against a selected nationalists and always tries to attack them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkwikie (talk • contribs) 10:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with denying a bot like that. Do you have any diffs for the poor behaviour that you mention? - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd ask Admins to take action to Lkwikie for WP:PERSONAL against me (refer F**k you) and false accusation - mentioning that I blocked bots and attacked a selected nationalists. --Anton 11:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The user (Lkwikie) shown good understanding. I'd like to withdraw my counter complain. --Anton 17:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

New account mimicking my user name

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

I have been on Misplaced Pages as User:Arjayay for over 7 years and 66K edits.
At 06:13 this morning a new user account Arjayaya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created - the only difference from my username being the additional a at the end
At 06.13 this new user also created the pages User:Arjayaya and User talk:Arjayaya just putting my user name, without the a, not their user name, with the a, on each page.
At 06.22 they vandalized Thesara Jayawardane as this diff changing the birth date, removing references etc.
The previous edit to Thesara Jayawardane had been by me, which is why I assume they adopted/adapted my name. This has already confused one editor, leading to posts about this vandalism on my talk page.
This new account appears to be an attempt to confuse our accounts, and I request this vandalism only account be blocked and an SPI run to see if a known user is behind it. - Arjayay (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 15:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been impersonated a few times, and a quick way to get rid of them is to go to WP:AIV and report them for "impersonation". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - both for the action, and the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruption and possible trolling

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

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

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

I don't want this user "thanking" me.

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

He has been very abusive to me in the past and we are subject to a mutual interaction ban. I want no further interaction with this person. Sorry if this seems petty but after the level of personal abuse he has levelled at me, and his wiki-lawyering "plausible deniability" games I find it hard to assume good faith here. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If you'd reported it sooner to when they thanked you I would have blocked them. I'll leave them a message and remind them that 'thanking' is a violation of an IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops, double warned. I should have left a note here before I headed over, I'll merge our sections there. Sam Walton (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly an IBAN violation to thank the person you have an IBAN with. It's "interacting" with them. This user should know better by now. Doc talk 11:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? After what, about 40 days? MaxBrowne has had numerous edits since the "violation" -- this is yet another violation of the ban on their part; there was no need to reiterate the allegations He has been very abusive to me, personal abuse he has levelled at me, and his wiki-lawyering "plausible deniability" to make a reasonable request IHTS stop with the thanks. NE Ent 13:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

MaxBrowne violation

MaxBrowne has previously called Ihardlythinkso (IHTS) a narcissist here ; he insists on maintaining this link discussing narcissists on the Internet on their talk page . In addition, their reference to the "play the victim" comment. I made on IHTS's talk page indicates he is unnecessarily monitoring that page. NE Ent 00:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Enough of the drama already. Go away. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The quote was added in November of last year. Is this one of those "thought police" investigations? Very spotty evidence of a direct personal attack on any one particular editor, much less any sort of IBAN violation. Doc talk 01:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not so much insistence on maintaining the link as anger that someone who doesn't contribute content but just hangs out at the drama boards thinks he has a right to unilaterally remove it. It's rude to edit someone's user page. Additionally, he opposed the interaction ban from the beginning and tried to muddy the waters any time I complained about violations. NE Ent, I consider you an enemy. Remember this before you stir up shit. That said, it's not such a big deal so I'll remove the link anyway. I just don't need this bullshit. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Grickles: copyright violations, block requested

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

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

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

User:Hasteur disruptive behavior.

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

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

Enfield Southgate (UK Parliament constituency)

I removed this image from this article because it is a fair use portrait of a person and thus can only be used in the person's article. The person's article has been deleted, so this image is actually an orphaned fair use image and these are normally speedily deleted. A user who saw that the image was used in the linked article, instead of removing it (as they should) and nominating it for Speedy Deletion, created an AfD. After I had removed it from the linked article and nominated it for Speedy, Graemp added it back on the basis that "I was disrupting the AfD", 'even though the file's use in that article is not acceptable, whether or not it passes the AfD.--The Theosophist (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)