MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 4 threads (older than 36h) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive810. |
re: |
||
Line 425: | Line 425: | ||
Let me restate or reemphasize the problem. There are hundreds of authors listed as contributors on the Gatestone Institute's website, some well known, some less so.[[http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/authors/ Author list]]. Does anyone mean to say that ALL their Gatestone articles are automatically deemed an unreliable source for any wikipedia statement and that these articles are basically banned from being cited as source on wikipedia? According to [[WP:RS]] '''"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content."''' It seems absurd to mass tag and mass delete tens of different articles by different authors as unreliable source without judging individually whether EACH is reliable for the statement being made! I just do not comprehend this mass automated deletion without any discussion in the relevant topic's talk page. These topics encompass tens of different wikipidia articles and hundreds of different statements and I do not see how this wonton mass deletion in a matter of minutes without due consideration could possibly be allowed. [[User:N1of2|N1of2]] ([[User talk:N1of2|talk]]) 20:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
Let me restate or reemphasize the problem. There are hundreds of authors listed as contributors on the Gatestone Institute's website, some well known, some less so.[[http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/authors/ Author list]]. Does anyone mean to say that ALL their Gatestone articles are automatically deemed an unreliable source for any wikipedia statement and that these articles are basically banned from being cited as source on wikipedia? According to [[WP:RS]] '''"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content."''' It seems absurd to mass tag and mass delete tens of different articles by different authors as unreliable source without judging individually whether EACH is reliable for the statement being made! I just do not comprehend this mass automated deletion without any discussion in the relevant topic's talk page. These topics encompass tens of different wikipidia articles and hundreds of different statements and I do not see how this wonton mass deletion in a matter of minutes without due consideration could possibly be allowed. [[User:N1of2|N1of2]] ([[User talk:N1of2|talk]]) 20:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Well, yes, they're unreliable on their face. Maybe you could make a case for an individual article or two being reliable if the author is some sort of super expert in the real world, but generally, if what they're saying is true and important, why can't they get it published in a real source instead of on the website of some fearmongering think tank? This is really not an ANI issue, VFP's actions are neutral at worst but probably a positive contribution. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 22:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== disruptive editing at [[WP:COI]] == |
== disruptive editing at [[WP:COI]] == |
||
Line 613: | Line 614: | ||
*{{IP|2602:304:AF53:3E99:C98D:A4D8:2C3E:4A8D}} - [[User talk:2602:304:AF53:3E99:C98D:A4D8:2C3E:4A8D|warnings]] (July 11) |
*{{IP|2602:304:AF53:3E99:C98D:A4D8:2C3E:4A8D}} - [[User talk:2602:304:AF53:3E99:C98D:A4D8:2C3E:4A8D|warnings]] (July 11) |
||
*{{IP|2602:304:AF53:3E99:88A2:BBB2:D3C3:5E85}} - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2602%3A304%3AAF53%3A3E99%3A88A2%3ABBB2%3AD3C3%3A5E85 Block], [[User talk:2602:304:AF53:3E99:88A2:BBB2:D3C3:5E85|warnings]] (July 11) |
*{{IP|2602:304:AF53:3E99:88A2:BBB2:D3C3:5E85}} - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2602%3A304%3AAF53%3A3E99%3A88A2%3ABBB2%3AD3C3%3A5E85 Block], [[User talk:2602:304:AF53:3E99:88A2:BBB2:D3C3:5E85|warnings]] (July 11) |
||
*{{IP|2602:304:AF53:3E99:AC44:28 |
|||
*{{IP|2602:304:AF53:3E99:AC44:2834:CF66:E28C}} - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2602%3A304%3AAF53%3A3E99%3AAC44%3A2834%3ACF66%3AE28C Block], [[User talk:2602:304:AF53:3E99:AC44:2834:CF66:E28C|warnings]] (July 12) |
|||
*{{IP|2602:304:AF53:3E99:2C4B:F6A:56CB:384B}} - [[User talk:2602:304:AF53:3E99:2C4B:F6A:56CB:384B|Warnings]] (july 13) |
|||
*{{IP|2602:304:AF53:3E99:3452:FAAE:480E:958B}} - [[User talk:2602:304:AF53:3E99:3452:FAAE:480E:958B|Warnings]] (july 13) |
|||
*{{IP|2602:304:AF53:3E99:480E:FF16:D5A:90DF}} - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2602%3A304%3AAF53%3A3E99%3A480E%3AFF16%3AD5A%3A90DF Block], [[User talk:2602:304:AF53:3E99:480E:FF16:D5A:90DF|warnings]] (July 13) |
|||
*{{IP|2602:304:AF53:3E99:7000:9355:2DE6:8B16}} - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2602%3A304%3AAF53%3A3E99%3A7000%3A9355%3A2DE6%3A8B16 Block], [[User talk:2602:304:AF53:3E99:7000:9355:2DE6:8B16|Warnings]] (July 14) |
|||
*{{IP|2602:304:AF53:3E99:1C8B:93FD:27BA:B0D1}} - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2602%3A304%3AAF53%3A3E99%3A1C8B%3A93FD%3A27BA%3AB0D1 Block] (July 23) |
|||
*{{IP|2602:304:AF53:3E99:9077:650A:B40D:66E8}} - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2602%3A304%3AAF53%3A3E99%3A9077%3A650A%3AB40D%3A66E8 Block] (July 26) |
|||
*{{IP|2602:304:AF53:3E99:7D9E:7FF5:2713:452F}} - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2602%3A304%3AAF53%3A3E99%3A7D9E%3A7FF5%3A2713%3A452F Block] (July 26) |
|||
*{{IP|2600:1006:B10C:8748:A93:BFB:6DEA:4579}} - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2600%3A1006%3AB10C%3A8748%3AA93%3ABFB%3A6DEA%3A4579 Block] (Aug 4) |
|||
*{{IP|2600:1006:B11D:90F7:CF99:6D89:DA26:7727}} - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2600%3A1006%3AB11D%3A90F7%3ACF99%3A6D89%3ADA26%3A7727 Block] (Aug 9) |
|||
*{{IP|2600:1006:B108:23BC:57CD:B7C9:775D:54B9}} - [[User talk:2600:1006:B108:23BC:57CD:B7C9:775D:54B9|warnings]] (August 15) |
|||
*{{IP|2600:1006:B127:6F24:9AB8:2E7D:C1C1:C836}} - [[User talk:2600:1006:B127:6F24:9AB8:2E7D:C1C1:C836|warnings]] (August 16) |
|||
*{{IP|2600:1006:B123:7502:C86D:9705:C421:DDE}} - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2600%3A1006%3AB123%3A7502%3AC86D%3A9705%3AC421%3ADDE Block] (Aug 18) |
|||
*{{IP|2600:1006:B124:DB15:1369:665:1593:700E}} - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2600%3A1006%3AB124%3ADB15%3A1369%3A665%3A1593%3A700E Block] (Aug 20) |
|||
*{{IP|2600:1006:B100:6E88:DA40:D1D3:F90E:C8}} - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2600%3A1006%3AB100%3A6E88%3ADA40%3AD1D3%3AF90E%3AC8 Block] (Aug 21) |
|||
*{{IP|2600:1006:B10A:82A7:59F4:6D7:E95E:A797}} - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2600%3A1006%3AB10A%3A82A7%3A59F4%3A6D7%3AE95E%3AA797 Block] (Aug 22) |
|||
*{{IP|2600:1006:B121:8B8C:A259:526B:BE1A:C78F}} - [[User talk:2600:1006:B121:8B8C:A259:526B:BE1A:C78F|warnings]] (Aug 26) |
|||
*{{IP|2600:1006:B107:41A4:4F32:BD88:12AE:3703}} - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2600%3A1006%3AB107%3A41A4%3A4F32%3ABD88%3A12AE%3A3703 Block], [[User talk:2600:1006:B107:41A4:4F32:BD88:12AE:3703|Warnings]] (Aug 26) |
|||
*{{IP|2600:1006:B11D:20E1:B00D:3476:D1F9:5437}} - [[User talk:2600:1006:B11D:20E1:B00D:3476:D1F9:5437|warnings]] (Aug 27) |
|||
*{{IP|2600:1006:B111:45F1:1C11:610B:F420:A9E1}} - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2600%3A1006%3AB111%3A45F1%3A1C11%3A610B%3AF420%3AA9E1 Block], [[User talk:2600:1006:B111:45F1:1C11:610B:F420:A9E1|Warnings]] (Aug 28) |
|||
*{{IP|2600:1006:B117:ECB:83BB:F313:3F6F:D35D}} - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2600%3A1006%3AB117%3AECB%3A83BB%3AF313%3A3F6F%3AD35D Block] (Aug 29) |
|||
* I'm a bit shaky on IPv6 rangeblocks, but I ''think'' these two ranges are 2600:1006:B100::/56 and 2602:0304:AF53:3E99::/64. (Someone will need to check that, before I block half the USA). I'm ''guessing'' that's a single user on a home IP (the latter /64) and possibly a work or mobile range (the /56)? [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] ([[User talk:Black Kite|talk]]) 01:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I think your mistaken regarding the /56. While I probably understand it even less, the chart at [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Range_blocks/IPv6 mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Range_blocks/IPv6] suggests you would need a much larger rangeblock, as best I can tell a /42. /56 would appear to cover only 2600:1006:B100:0000-2600:1006:B100:00ff. [[User:Monty845|<font color="Green">Monty</font>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub><font color="#A3BFBF">845</font></sub></small>]] 03:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*The 2602:304:AF53:3E99::/64 addresses are still covered by the rangeblock mentioned in the ANI thread mentioned by the OP. However, unless a CheckUser can absolutely clear the 2600:1006:B000::/39 range of collateral damage, I cannot recommend rangeblocking, even at the /64 level, because this is a mobile network with many users on each subnet (a /64 might have limited collateral, especially given that we may need them because of this user's IP hopping, but since the user is hopping across multiple /64's, I don't think it will be useful to do so). Depending on the nature of the situation, an abuse filter might be a next-best option.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 05:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Date of Birth == |
|||
This seems almost trivial compared to some of the stuff here. The main editor of [[Anitha Shaiq]] has been trying to remove her DoB because the subject of the article doesn't want it there. My first thought is that we shouldn't allow people to censor articles, but I suppose that it could be argued that it's sensitive information. |
|||
I wouldn't normally bother people with this, but I've been quite involved in this article, trying to minimise the spamming, inappropriate ELs etc., and sometimes bludgeoning a bit because the editor will only discuss when coerced into doing so (even reverting xbot!). In view of my involvement, I'd welcome an independent view <font face="chiller"><font color="red"><b>[[User:Jimfbleak|Jimfbleak]] - </b></font></font><font face="arial"><font color="green">[[User talk:Jimfbleak| talk to me?]]</font></font> 05:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*I believe it is common practice to remove a date of birth from a BLP if the subject requests it, and, if I remember correctly, it may even be in the BLP policy. [[User:Lukeno94|<font color="Navy">Luke</font><font color="FireBrick">no</font><font color="Green">94</font>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] 07:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
** Date, yes. Year, no! The aim is not to indulge peoples vanities. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 07:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
***If there is no source for the birth date, the entire thing should be removed immediately, and that appears to be the case here. Claiming someone was born earlier than they were in reality is considered defamatory in some circles, and so should absolutely be considered a BLP violation here. If the birth date can be tied to a reliable source, then simply giving the year is common practice if the subject requests it. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 07:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:This is what you mean: [[WP:DOB]]. I've advised the main editor of [[Anitha Shaiq]] that the subject should contact OTRS if she has a plausible reason for not wanting the DoB shown. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 07:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::For clarification, there has been no claim that the DoB is wrong, just that she doesn't want it there (perhaps, as a performer, she doesn't want her age revealed). If I removed it as unsourced, I might as well delete the whole article given that the one ref doesn't support much of the text, but I'm reluctant to do that having helped/coerced the editor to clean up the original hagiography <font face="chiller"><font color="red"><b>[[User:Jimfbleak|Jimfbleak]] - </b></font></font><font face="arial"><font color="green">[[User talk:Jimfbleak| talk to me?]]</font></font> 07:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Abiding by [[WP:BLP]] would mean deleting unreferenced content which '''may be defamatory''', whether or not it is challenged. The rest of the content is another issue. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 07:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::I've cut out all of the personal/early/family/school life because it was all unsourced. We're not a substitute for a personal blog; if the information has been discussed in reliable sources, we can cover it, but, if not, it's not important enough for inclusion (and, to be honest, much of that wouldn't be suitable for an encyclopedia article even if it were sourced). [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 12:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:OTEx]] == |
|||
*{{userlinks|OTEx}} |
|||
*{{userlinks|Ishishgibberish}} |
|||
[[User:OTEx]] has appeared at [[Talk:September 11 attacks]] with what appears to be a Truther agenda, demanding the placement of POV tags [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&diff=570573716&oldid=570570760] and accusing other editors [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&diff=569848967&oldid=569732324] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&diff=570556709&oldid=570555210], and possibly the government [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&diff=570586937&oldid=570582739] of hijacking the article. They moved on to focus-on-contributors-not-content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&diff=570597941&oldid=570590351] and baiting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&diff=570668869&oldid=570660220]. Based on my engagement on [[User talk:OTEx]] they're concealing their primary account [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OTEx&diff=570709674&oldid=570707306] and basically beating around the bush [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OTEx&diff=570723380&oldid=570711271]. They were warned about the general 9/11 arbitration enforcement sanctions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OTEx&diff=570675385&oldid=570668634] and are clearly in violation of the original, narrow sanction terms. I've blocked a sockpuppet account, [[User:Ishishgibberish]], as OTEx's "cypher changed itself by the sheer power of its will." Whatever. Since I don't consider myself an uninvolved editor for the purpose of 9/11-related sanctions, I'm asking for a review of OTEx's behavior and appropriate action. '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<font color="black">Acroterion</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<font color="gray">(talk)</font>]]</small></font>''' 01:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: A good block that should be followed up with a block to [[User:OTEx]]; that user wasted more of our time then we should've allowed. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 01:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::After taking a look at [[Talk:September 11 attacks#Unlock the article]] I suggest an indef block per [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Admins should not take the trouble to go through the Arbcom sanctions process for someone who is making no effort to contribute in a normal way. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::That's probably the most practical approach. I strongly suspect that this is someone who was sanctioned under the arbitration remedy some years ago, returning to try to settle scores, but it's not really worth the trouble to find out who it might be. '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<font color="black">Acroterion</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<font color="gray">(talk)</font>]]</small></font>''' 04:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*Support indeff. OTEx is obviously [[WP:NOTHERE]] who ever he may have been in a past life. The suggestion of a focussed group is a ridiculous interpretation of a full page protection. Those rants are purely disruptive. I would do the block myself now, but I prefer to add to the consensus. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 07:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support indef''' as per [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Regardless of which banned editor they may be, they're not any remote benefit to the encyclopedia. [[User:Lukeno94|<font color="Navy">Luke</font><font color="FireBrick">no</font><font color="Green">94</font>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] 07:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support indef''' Obviously a "editor" with an agenda against Wikipedia and this article in general. Someone who sees conspiracy everwhere and has made allegations of editors working in a cabal - without any evidence. [[User:David J Johnson|David J Johnson]] ([[User talk:David J Johnson|talk]]) 09:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Ask and ye shall received--user indeff'd under [[WP:Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]]. I've left them the option of agreeing instead to an indefinite complete topic ban on anything related to September 11 in all wikispaces...but I doubt that will occur. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 12:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Continued policy violations from [[User:TonyTheTiger]] at [[WT:FOUR]] == |
|||
*I know, we're tired of reading these. However, over the past two days Tony has not only edited another user's talk page comments ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Four_Award&diff=570413298&oldid=570412065 diff]), which fortunately he has not repeated, but implicitly accused editors who disagree with him with be racists (i.e. [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]). He [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Four_Award&diff=570773923&oldid=570762100 uses the term] ''five'' times in describing a proposed closure with which he disagrees, implying that the editor who formulated the suggested closure ([[User:Cdtew|Cdtew]]) is racist. One of the most telling quotes from this is |
|||
{{quote|"Item 1 of the above closure goes way beyond any non-racist interpretation "Should this project's criteria (and the eligibility of articles for those criteria) be determined by community consensus or by an elected project director?" Yes there is consensus not to have the director determine the criteria, but how racist do you have to be to say that means there is consensus that the director/leader will be relieved of all other responsibilities.}} |
|||
:When challenged to support his PAs with diffs, his reply was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Four_Award&diff=570776373&oldid=570775539 "Racism in this case is like pornography. I know it when I see it."], with a lengthy diatribe against the proposed closure which seems to imply other editors are likewise racists: "They have cleverly waited until after the traffic from the less involved participants has died down before making their outlandish suggestions." When given a final warning, his reply was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Four_Award&diff=570781446&oldid=570776866 "I don't know what else to call it. I could say that everybody is playing dumb if you want".] Though Tony may be right that the proposed closure is irregular, he has yet to provide any support for his claims that the opposition he faces is racism. |
|||
:Could we please have a non-involved admin deal out the necessary reprimanding? I'm too involved with the WP:FOUR issues to do any blocking or otherwise use the admin tools. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 08:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Who said this "Though Tony may be right that the proposed closure is irregular"?---[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 09:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::*That was me. Don't split up my post. Irregular here should be read as "not according to current consensus on the process", not as "there ''is'' ill-dealings going on", and "may" is "perhaps". You raise a fairly decent point, but immediately render it moot by playing the race card. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Is it just me or does Tony appear to have a complete lack of clue as to the use of the term "racist"? I remember a thread some years ago where Tony made the same accusations of racism again using his complete misinterpretation of the word. However, when challenged on it, he'd obfuscate as to his definition of it thus leaving participants unwilling/unable to sanction him for what is a personal attack in every way, shape or form. Quite frankly, regardless of his interpretation, the litany of racism accusations should be grounds for a block of some sort. [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 09:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*Crisco, like I said. You can read the RFC, it asks two questions. You want to expand it to grant you permission to change the administration of [[WP:FOUR]] around in all other ways. It was an RFC about one element of my claimed director role and you want to use it to usurp all other roles. You have been playing games for a month trying all kinds of administrative actions to put pressure on me for this and that. You have failed at several MFDs and now you have baited me into actions at the current RFC by pretending not to understand what it was about and pretending not to know what an appropriate close is based on the questions put up for discussion. If you act as a racist, I will call you one whether I can prove it or not. No amount of reprimanding will ever silence this portion of my personality. Stop pretending not to know how to read in an attempt to bait my into another ANI.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:?!? How in the world is he acting as a racist? Please, illuminate us to your thought process here. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Tony, you need to define your meaning of "racist". Are you saying that Crisco is making some sort of biased judgement against based on your ethnicity? [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 09:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:*I'm assuming that's what he means. Odd, being called a racist after all the articles I've written on non-white subjects (significantly more than articles I've written on white subjects). Seriously, is that not a blatant enough PA for Tony to be blocked to calm down? — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::* Racism [[Django_Unchained|isn't limited]] to "non-whites".--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 12:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:{{facepalm}} - I have seen some stupidity over at [[WP:FOUR]] but this just has to be by far the most stupid remark from TTT that I have EVER seen! They seem to be trying to play EVERY card and cling to EVERY straw to stay in "power" as director of WP:FOUR but it's just not working. If anyone wants to revive a topic ban discussion then go right ahead... I just looked in the mirror and my face is probably going to bruise! [[User:PantherLeapord|PantherLeapord]]|[[User talk:PantherLeapord|My talk page]]|[[User:PantherLeapord/CSD log|My CSD log]] 09:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Who acknowledged that the suggested close at FOUR was irregular?---[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 09:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Who keeps on trying to FORCE editors to stick to a "my way or the highway" mentality? [[User:PantherLeapord|PantherLeapord]]|[[User talk:PantherLeapord|My talk page]]|[[User:PantherLeapord/CSD log|My CSD log]] 10:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::PantherLeapord, here is something for you to think about: Who has done more to maintain the Four Award? You or Tony? I'm guessing it is Tony. That leads me to another question: Why did you take it upon yourself to rip the project away from the user who has done so much of the maintenance work there? [[User:AutomaticStrikeout|Automatic]]''[[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|Strikeout]]'' <small>([[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|₵]])</small> 17:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Well, here I am, waking up and reading the news and Wikipedia, and I find that I've been accused five times of being a racist. I'm not quite sure where the accusation stems from (unless "self-appointed Four Award director" is a race, in which case I suppose I'm guilty). TTT, I don't know if you're white, black, asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, hispanic, time lord, Dalek, dog, cat, or a who from Whoville. Nothing that's I'm aware of wold even suggest to me what your race is. I have never made a single comment that casts aspersions on anyone due to their race, and I am personally deeply offended at your accusation. It appears to me that you are yet again resorting to senseless distractions because you're clearly losing the RfC. I ask an Administrator to take some form of action against Toney because I simply won't stand him slandering my name further. (FYI, I warned him about altering my comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATonyTheTiger&diff=570424188&oldid=570381772 on his talk] several days ago). This occurred thereafter. [[User:Cdtew|'''<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cdtew</span>''']] ([[User talk:Cdtew|talk]]) 11:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Let me also add, I was a completely uninvolved editor until I (perhaps stupidly) tried to come up with what I thought was a common sense resolution. I've never had more than a sentence of interaction with TTT before this, and have never made a personal attack on him. In fact, I've defended him from personal attacks! . [[User:Cdtew|'''<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cdtew</span>''']] ([[User talk:Cdtew|talk]]) 12:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:*I second the request to have sanctions brought against Tony for this series of egregious personal attacks. I do not take false accusations of racism lightly, and view it as no less a personal attack than any of the words filtered on most talk boards. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 12:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
* When I read the latest changes on the RFC myself, I wondered what to do about it. I agree TTT is completely overboard with his accusations. He is also stonewalling the discussion about closing the RFC. Tony is absolutely welcome to hold any position in any RFC. But vehemently opposing any close that does not agree with his reading is crossing the line. I support a topic ban for editing anything related to the FOUR award for at least the duration of the current AfC. [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] ([[User talk:Martijn Hoekstra|talk]]) 12:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Support''' topic ban for FOUR award. Last time I argued that TTT should be given a third chance despite his previous block for edit-warring and then his massive canvassing and accusations of bad-faith. Only days ago after he tried to ping me back into the discussion, I urged him again to disengage for a while. It seems clear at this point, though, that he's either unwilling or unable to behave himself in basic ways, and is going to continue to keep finding new ways to cause drama the situation until banned from the page. There was no reason for a user page icon to turn into WWIII; we need to start de-escalating. -- [[User:Khazar2|Khazar2]] ([[User talk:Khazar2|talk]]) 13:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*Disruptive behaviour / personal attacks by TTT again, throwing around the word "racist" completely inappropriately, as he did in June 2012, which led to a block for 48 hours. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=497595050#WP:FS_Ban_lift_request AN link], [[User_talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive_71#Blocked_48h|TTT talk page link]]. Instead of backing down when the matter is brought to ANI, TTT keeps going: "If you act as a racist, I will call you one whether I can prove it or not." This is well over the line and I am '''blocking TTT for a further 48 hours'''. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 12:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse block''' I was actually about to do it myself, but indefinite. I would have blocked TTT until he either identified which remarks were racist, what his definition of racism is, or retracted the remarks.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 12:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse block''' I've been thinking about indefinitely blocking Tony too. I'd support the block being extended if no progress is made in resolving this clusterfuck in the next 48 hours. The behaviour over [[WP:FOUR]] is getting to the stage where it's going to deter editors from creating content if they feel they're going to be dragged into messy drama about awards when they're quite content editing, making good content and avoiding the usual drama areas (i.e here). [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 12:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Observation''' – the only reason I know TTT's race is because [[user:Crisco 1492|Crisco]] has chosen to nominate for deletion a page about Tony in his user space whilst also in conflict with him at [[WT:FOUR]]. Tony's racism comments were over the top and likely reflect that he has been subject to racism offline, but I think Crisco has contributed to Tony feeling that he is being attacked. Tony has been treated badly in the FOUR discussion, which does not excuse or justify his comments, but it does explain his frustration. Maybe some genuinely unbiased and dispassionate eyes on the FOUR discussion might lead to some of Tony's valid points being recognised and separated from the unreasonable posts. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 13:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{reply to|EdChem}} First, the racism comment was directed at me. Second -- "some genuinely unbiased and dispassionate eyes on the FOUR discussion" -- begs that you review my contributions to the discussion, which I believe were entirely fair and neutral. I've never had a cross word with Tony or Crisco, and Tony awarded me the Four Award for [[Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)]], while I've had limited interaction with Crisco, but all very positive (off the top of my head) -- so I thought highly of both prior hereto. I called out other users for attacking Tony, I recognized that he was right about the first proposal and my first alternate proposal being a little off-base (hence the striking-through), and then I get my comments edited and called a racist. That sort of capricious nonsensical battleground behavior is why Tony has no excuse for what he's done, regardless of his race, color, creed, or gender. [[User:Cdtew|'''<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cdtew</span>''']] ([[User talk:Cdtew|talk]]) 13:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::*{{reply to|Cdtew}}: I have no reason to believe anyone has actually been racist, Tony's claim in that regard was over the top and I will not attempt to justify or excuse his actions. Your contribution has been much better than most and I was not seeking to criticise you. Unfortunately, most contributors have declined to recognise the validity of anything Tony has written, which has not helped to produce a reasonable outcome. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{reply to|EdChem}}: I had no knowledge of Tony's race until I stumbled across that user page (after looking through his user space, piqued by his comments about racism), and the MFD came not long after that for reasons that I've outlined there. I think Cdtew has been dispassionate here — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 13:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::*{{reply to|Crisco 1492}}: I have no reason to believe anyone has actually been racist, Tony's claim in that regard was over the top, unjustified and more than a little bizarre. Your decision to nominate his userspace page was unwise given the surrounding conflict and I am disappointed that you did not recognise it as likely to be provocative. As far as dispassionate goes, I've watched the debate at WT:FOUR since before I was invited by Tony to participate and I think your "side" has behaved poorly and not taken on board some of Tony's reasonable points. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::*{{reply to|EdChem}}: Re: MFD: Perhaps, but I was concerned that if I let it be I would forget (I'm somewhat notorious for that). Re: Behaviour: I was not speaking about any "side", and admit that there were transgressions on both "sides". I was saying that Cdtew has been acting quite dispassionately. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 14:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Support block''' - I also note from his block log and talk page this isn't the first time, he has been blocked previously for making accusations of racism against other users and warned a few times. If he isn't learning this lesson then perhaps we should consider longer than a 48 hour block. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<font color="Blue">'''Canterbury Tail'''</font>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|''<font color="Blue">talk</font>'']] 13:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Block for quite a while''' This isn't the first time I've seen TonytheTiger here. Y'all need to be thwapping him for flagrant WP:CIVIL violations too; falsely accusing users of racism is something that needs to be seriously discouraged. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 13:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Accusations of racism don't need to be discouraged, they need to be treated much more seriously; especially by those making the accusations. When accusations are flagerantly thrown around, it desensitizes us to real racism. Discouraging it is an effect of that desensitization and the effect of discouraging it will be that legitimate cases will go unheard. We need to step up our responsibility to both be non-discriminatory and treat racism very seriously. Those making the accusations need to realize how serious the accusation is and provide serious evidence so those of us reviewing the accusations can also treat it seriously.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*FYI: He was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3ATonyTheTiger&type=block blocked] about an hour ago for 48 hours by [[User: Bencherlite]]. Rgrds. --[[Special:Contributions/64.85.215.190|64.85.215.190]] ([[User talk:64.85.215.190|talk]]) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ec}}'''Up block to a week''' 48hrs for the first block makes sense, a repeat of the same behaviour should be met with the obvioius escalation. Thanks to Bencherlite for finding the AN link. That was the one I was referring to in my original comment. Randomly throwing out accusations of racism have the same chilling effect as legal threats and should not be tolerated at all. @IP Bencherlite posted notification of their block above. [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::<small>Hunh, must of skipped over that somehow in all the text and clicking on the diffs, etc., sorry. --[[Special:Contributions/64.85.215.190|64.85.215.190]] ([[User talk:64.85.215.190|talk]]) 14:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*'''Comment''' - since he's blocked, it really needs extending. He was blocked for this exact offense just over a year ago, and clearly hasn't learned, so I think the block should go up to a week, just like Blackmane says. I would support an indefinite topic ban from [[WP:FOUR]] (as I've said a few times) but not an indef block '''this time''' - however, if he ever repeated the unfounded, abusive accusations, then I would definitely support an indef block. [[User:Lukeno94|<font color="Navy">Luke</font><font color="FireBrick">no</font><font color="Green">94</font>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] 16:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*''' Support Topic Ban ''' If memory serves me right, something like this happened with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Featured_Sounds_Process Featured Sounds ] as well. Ban and hand over FOUR to someone else <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:0.50x;">[[User:KoshVorlon|<font style="color:blue;background:white"> '''K'''osh'''V'''orlon]].<font style="color:white;background:blue;"> '''W'''e '''a'''re '''a'''ll '''K'''osh ... </font></span> 16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*''' Oppose Topic Ban ''' It is disappointing that TTT restored to accusations of racism. It is also disappointing that some people felt it necessary to try and wrest [[WP:FOUR]] away from TTT, basically pushing him to the side and acting like his years of contributions didn't matter. This was handled brutally and not just by TTT. [[User:AutomaticStrikeout|Automatic]]''[[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|Strikeout]]'' <small>([[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|₵]])</small> 16:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:*Like I said before, I didn't have a personal stake in this discussion, just brought my relatively neutral viewpoint to the argument. I wouldn't be disclosing everything if I didn't say at this point I'm less neutral, and have been personally offended. That being said, if there's one thing history can teach us, it's that when someone appoints themselves the sole arbiter of anything, they assume the risk of being deposed, violently or otherwise. In that vein, several editors sought to have a policy changed/a circumstance accommodated within existing policy, TTT held himself out as the sole arbiter or the policy and denied the request, and now appears to be losing his grasp to the democracy of the editorship. So, wrest away. [[User:Cdtew|'''<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cdtew</span>''']] ([[User talk:Cdtew|talk]]) 17:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::*If he is indeed abusing his position, then that needs to be dealt with. It may be that sanctions are necessary. However, it almost looks to me like some people, not necessarily including you, can hardly wait to completely remove Tony from the Four Award. I really hope it doesn't have to wind up turning out that way. [[User:AutomaticStrikeout|Automatic]]''[[User talk:AutomaticStrikeout|Strikeout]]'' <small>([[Special:Contributions/AutomaticStrikeout|₵]])</small> 17:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::*We are not trying to tear TTT from WP:FOUR; we are rather trying to make it clear that personal attacks, constant ABF and abuse will not be tolerated! [[User:PantherLeapord|PantherLeapord]]|[[User talk:PantherLeapord|My talk page]]|[[User:PantherLeapord/CSD log|My CSD log]] 22:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
'''Support indef topic ban''' - It's time to say "Enough is enough" and put our foot down. [[User:PantherLeapord|PantherLeapord]]|[[User talk:PantherLeapord|My talk page]]|[[User:PantherLeapord/CSD log|My CSD log]] 22:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Easy block == |
|||
The easyblock script isn't working for me today (drop down menu appears, but click has no effect). Is it just me, or is there a problem with this wonderful tool? <font face="chiller"><font color="red"><b>[[User:Jimfbleak|Jimfbleak]] - </b></font></font><font face="arial"><font color="green">[[User talk:Jimfbleak| talk to me?]]</font></font> 09:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm having the same issue. ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]'' <sup>[[User talk:NativeForeigner|Talk]]</sup> 09:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Me too. The dropdwn drops down, but the page just goes green and nothing else happens. Is it a Twinkle issue, or is it an issue for Bugzill, or something to do with the defaylt login to https since two days ago? I have a couple of other scripts not working since then too. 11:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) |
|||
:::I doubt it involves the default https although it's a possibility. I've been using https for at least two months, and never had an issue. I haven't tried to use the script in a week or two though. ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]'' <sup>[[User talk:NativeForeigner|Talk]]</sup> 14:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'll see what happens next time I want to use it and if it persists I'll mention it on the VPT because I'm not sure who develops it. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 22:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Found it: importScript('User:Animum/easyblock.js') - I'll contact the author. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 22:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Copyright problem: Jozef van Wissem == |
|||
I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jozef_van_Wissem&diff=570837526&oldid=570836562 removed] copyright violations from [[Jozef van Wissem]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jozef_van_Wissem&diff=prev&oldid=570839446 added] associated acts, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jozef_van_Wissem&diff=prev&oldid=570834588 updated] career, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jozef_van_Wissem&diff=prev&oldid=570835955 updated] style and influences. But Ymblanter suddenly appeared, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jozef_van_Wissem&diff=570847724&oldid=570847471 reverted] all my edits (re-added copyvio material, blanked associated acts, and removed well-sourced material without explanation), and protected the page indefinitely, saying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ymblanter&diff=prev&oldid=570849924 "you goal is not improving Wikipedia but something else"]. I don't think his editing behavior complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:CV]], and especially [[WP:PREFER]], which states that "administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes", in this case. I would like to hear other editors' opinions about his administrative actions. [[User:Jvwissem|Jvwissem]] ([[User talk:Jvwissem|talk]]) 19:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: The history page of the article (especially in March) may give a hint who this new user is and what they want.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 19:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: I also suggest that administrators consider a hard username block.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 19:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::For the record, Ymblanter somehow changed protection level of the page from "indefinitely" to "3 days" and visibility from "disable" to "enable" after this issue being reported here. [[User:Jvwissem|Jvwissem]] ([[User talk:Jvwissem|talk]]) 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Lx 121|Lx 121]] seems to be objecting PRODs because he is "not a fan" == |
|||
So about two weeks ago, I placed a PROD on [[Laguna (album)]]. It was removed two days ago with the edit summary "suggest merge to the group's article, rather than prod". I was a bit confused by this, as he didn't explain what exactly he wanted to merge or anything, so I inquired on this talk page in [[User talk:Lx 121#Your de-PRODing of Laguna (album)|this thread]]. After he replied saying ''he didn't like PRODs in general'', and I saw a couple more threads on his talk asking about PRODs, I decided to look through his contributions, and I found that he was removing a whole bunch of PRODs with little to no explanation. |
|||
Removals like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Affected_community&diff=prev&oldid=570515955 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Undefined&diff=prev&oldid=570523170 this] are what I'm talking about, and a lot of other ones just say "suggest merge, oppose PROD" or something similar. [[User talk:Lx 121#PROD|This thread]] on his talk page followed. Now, while I know an explanation isn't technically required, it's generally looked down upon to not include an explanation from what I've heard, and since he said he has stuff against the policy, I can't help but think he's doing this just to get rid of PRODs, which would violate [[WP:POINT]]. Thoughts? [[User talk:TCN7JM|<font color="blue" face="Tahoma">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/TCN7JM|<font color="red" face="Tahoma">C</font>]][[User:TCN7JM|<font color="gray" face="Tahoma">N7</font><font color="black" face="Tahoma">JM</font>]] 21:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:42, 30 August 2013
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning
User:Enkyo2 continuously violating WP:SELFREF
My last ANI on this was poorly put together, so I might as well just start anew. I have drawn Enkyo2's attention to the relevant policy several times,[1][2][3][] but he is continuing to protest my removal of his commentary on Wikipedia policy from the article space.[4] I think he doesn't understand why this is problematic. Could someone help me explain it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is still clearly a content issue, just like it was a few days ago when multiple editors told you the same thing here. Look for WP:3O or another form of dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Two users expressed their POV that it was a content issue. This time I have provided evidence that this user, despite being told multiple times what the policy is, is continuing to dismiss it. It has nothing to do with content, since none of the edits concerned affect article content. The problem is with Enkyo2 adding references to Wikipedia policy to the article space and refusing to desist even when pointed in the direction of the relevant policy. I was not given a chance in the last thread to respond to the question regarding what kind of admin action I want. I want Enkyo2 to stop assuming bad faith on my part, or for someone in authority whose good faith he HAS TO assume to tell him the same thing I have. No one has thus far disagreed with me on the substance here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Someone should definitely help this user out on the matter. (I would, since I've worked a lot in self-referential parts of the 'pedia, but I'm a bit busy.) However, he's clearly not the only one doing this. I've noticed several articles where there's a blacklisted link and it says in the footnote "(link not allowed by Wikipedia)"—there's one on Nate Silver that I've been meaning to fix for ages. I.e., this isn't an incident, since it's a fairly common mistake. Maybe the Help Desk or the Teahouse would be a better place to find assistance in explaining it? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Two users expressed their POV that it was a content issue. This time I have provided evidence that this user, despite being told multiple times what the policy is, is continuing to dismiss it. It has nothing to do with content, since none of the edits concerned affect article content. The problem is with Enkyo2 adding references to Wikipedia policy to the article space and refusing to desist even when pointed in the direction of the relevant policy. I was not given a chance in the last thread to respond to the question regarding what kind of admin action I want. I want Enkyo2 to stop assuming bad faith on my part, or for someone in authority whose good faith he HAS TO assume to tell him the same thing I have. No one has thus far disagreed with me on the substance here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hijiri, there are multiple interpretations of what is and is not acceptable under WP:SELFREF (which, by the way, is a guideline, not a policy), and your complaint appears to be not about an editor's behavior but about content being put in an article--that makes this a content dispute. Based on my brief skim of the diff you gave in your first ANI posting on this, that user's edit does not look egregiously out of line (pronunciation notes are not uncommon in articles), so instead of coming to the drama board you should be looking for a reasonable consensus.
- Now on to you. Your own behavior in this dispute, as far as I can tell (I have not taken time to dig up all the relevant diffs and history), has not been above reproach. You started a frivolous ANI thread about article content, where you accused your opponent of not speaking English, when that was nowhere close to true. The four complaints that you raised in that thread were all content concerns, and you never explained the issue (which I saw you mention on the user's talk page, not in ANI) of the clarity of the user's talk page posts, so I have no idea which thing you are actually upset about. Finally, as far as I can tell, User talk:Enkyo2#"Jimmu" and others is the only place where you have attempted to have a discussion with the user about that issue (the other diffs you provided are a revert of his edit--reverts are not discussion--and your own ANI thread). This ANI posting is completely premature. The user in question had already responded to you at his talk page before you posted this second ANI, and yet you chose to return to the drama board rather than actually respond to the user. Why don't you try to go resolve this content dispute in a constructive way? rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- The user in question responded on his talk page, but the response essentially said "I don't care what the guideline is, and I'm not going to listen to you". There may be multiple interpretations of SELFREF, but surely inserting one's own controversial interpretation of a Wikipedia style guideline into an article in order to undermine an ongoing RM is near the bottom of potentially acceptable SELFREFS... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, since you have made absolutely no effort to explain the context of this disagreement, why should I (or any other editor here) just take your word that your view is right and the other editor's is wrong? Secondly, you still have not indicated how this is anything other than a content dispute. ANI is not a venue for solving content disputes; people have already given you links to appropriate venues. Continuing this discussion here would be a waste of time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have any idea how hard it is to edit English Wikipedia on a Japanese smart phone? I have mentioned a couple of times in the last few days, including here on ANI, that my computer is in bad shape and I can only post from my phone. I have made a TREMENDOUS effort to explain the context. Enkyo2 didn't like my proposed move of Emperor Jimmu, and he responded by posting a note in the first line of the article that expresses his personal interpretation of a guideline that myself and a number of other users including In ictu oculi clearly interpreted the opposite way. This edit did not alter the content of the article, but clearly represents an attempt to bring a dispute about style guidelines into the article space. I can't take it to DRN because there is no content dispute. The closest thing to a content dispute is the original RM (which is still open) which only concerns the spelling of one word. But my problem is Enkyo2's way of dealing with this, which is posting comments that belong on the talk page in the article itself. I am sorry if I sound hostile, but it's NOT fun trying to deal with issues like this exclusively from a phone that keeps trying to convert everything I type into Japanese. (That's also why it's difficult to post a full record of diffs.) Seriously. The other issue I'm dealing with at the moment is an obvious sockpuppet/vandal/POV-pusher, and I wasn't even able to open the SPI myself... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Based on what you just said, this is absolutely a content dispute. A footnote is article content; if you guys disagree about a footnote, you are disagreeing about article content. Your claim that Enkyo2 refuses to discuss the issue is bogus, because he had already responded to your discussion attempt before you opened this unnecessary thread. Let me say it again (this is the last time I will say it): this is a content dispute.
- Also, your problems about your phone are exactly that: your problems. It is frankly ridiculous that you expect someone to take administrative action against some other editor because you can't find a practical way to edit. (Ever think to try a library or internet café?) Likewise, the fact that you're dealing with an unrelated sock is totally irrelevant to this dispute. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Either you're misreading what Hijiri is saying, or you're deliberately making things up. Claiming that Hijiri is asking for administrative action because they're editing from their phone is ludicrous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. He's explaining why he's having problems with diffs (and his comment about the SPI was an aside - not unusual here). I will say that I looked at the comment about a blocked link at Nate Silver. A good example of why such comments are a bad idea - the link isn't blocked, but does lead to a parody page now (hijacked?). Self-references to Wikipedia are a bad idea - they are similar to using Wikipedia as a source, which we don't do. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Still none of you have said anything to even remotely suggest that this is anything other than a content dispute. No administrator action is needed, and the discussion does not belong here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Rjanag's insistence that I can go to a library to edit Wikipedia shows an ignorance of Japanese public libraries. Internet cafes are also rare in my area. But I'm in one now, thankfully. The dodgy browser randomly closing tabs I have open is not helpful, though.
- This is not a content dispute. Posting a note in the article space that doesn't change the content of the article in any substantial way, but misrepresents current Wikipedia guidelines and serves to undermine an ongoing RM is not a content issue.
- This is not a content dispute. I raised a number of issues with a user's behaviour, which have been consistently ignored by Rjanag (and no one else, despite his above claiming that "multiple editors told you the same thing"). This included (a) the aforementioned posting of a problematic note in order to undermine an RM I had just started;[5][6][7] (b) using the passive voice past simple ("A note was added") instead of simply saying "I have added a note", thus initially misleading me into thinking that it was added according to consensus at some earlier date, rather than a deliberate and unilateral edit that he had just made; (c) this isn't the first time Enkyo has been challenged for refusing to use plain English on talk pages -- he has improved, but there's still a way to go in my opinion; (d) !voting against the RM solely as "revenge" against me for deleting said note, despite previously indicating that he would not !vote until more people got involved (which no one did);[8][9][10][11] (e) posting a large amount of peripherally-related text both in the RM and on his own talk page (I'm pretty sure this is also something for which he's been taken to task before);[12][13] (f) closely following on my heels to a bunch of articles.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]
- Rjanag, do you honestly think if I posted the above 6 complaints on DRN they would take it seriously as a content dispute? Or do you think they would send me back here because I clearly have a problem with user behaviour?
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Another (much lesser) problem. In the past, Enkyo has cited questionable, very old primary sources as references for things that happened after they were written.[25] I don't know if he is still doing this, and his 2007 edits wouldn't be an issue, if he didn't come back two days ago and re-format the reference, without noticing the problem.[26] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Information added to article space (regardless of whether it's in a footnote or the main text) is content. Hence, content dispute. WP:SELFREF is a content guideline, not a behavioral guideline.
- As for the rest of the diffs you just posted, to be perfectly honest I have not looked at them. If there were legitimate behavioral problems with the user's conduct at talk pages, it should not have taken you this long to mention them. Your original complaint was about the wording of content the user put in articles, and that issue is obviously a content dispute. If there was a behavioral issue, you should not have wasted days making irrelevant complaints about content issues. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- My original complaint was that, having posted questionable material in an article, in problematic response to my RM, Enkyo refused to use plain English on the talk page to discuss it, instead posting vaguely related gibberish. He's been called out for this in ArbCom cases before, so your refusal to take it seriously now is just plain baffling. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, your original complaint claimed the user was posting non-English in article space, which was not at all true. You also claimed that the user wouldn't respond to requests for discussion, which again was not true because the user had already responded before you brought this ANI (and instead of engaging in discussion, you came here to open this thread). If you expected me to take previous arbitration cases into account, you should have made at least an ounce of effort to provide links or diffs. I cannot read your mind. You have made barely any effort to provide explanation or background about any of the issues you are trying to bring here. This whole thing is extremely unproductive. If you want a productive solution, people have already told you where you can find content dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- My original complaint was that, having posted questionable material in an article, in problematic response to my RM, Enkyo refused to use plain English on the talk page to discuss it, instead posting vaguely related gibberish. He's been called out for this in ArbCom cases before, so your refusal to take it seriously now is just plain baffling. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Still none of you have said anything to even remotely suggest that this is anything other than a content dispute. No administrator action is needed, and the discussion does not belong here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. He's explaining why he's having problems with diffs (and his comment about the SPI was an aside - not unusual here). I will say that I looked at the comment about a blocked link at Nate Silver. A good example of why such comments are a bad idea - the link isn't blocked, but does lead to a parody page now (hijacked?). Self-references to Wikipedia are a bad idea - they are similar to using Wikipedia as a source, which we don't do. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have any idea how hard it is to edit English Wikipedia on a Japanese smart phone? I have mentioned a couple of times in the last few days, including here on ANI, that my computer is in bad shape and I can only post from my phone. I have made a TREMENDOUS effort to explain the context. Enkyo2 didn't like my proposed move of Emperor Jimmu, and he responded by posting a note in the first line of the article that expresses his personal interpretation of a guideline that myself and a number of other users including In ictu oculi clearly interpreted the opposite way. This edit did not alter the content of the article, but clearly represents an attempt to bring a dispute about style guidelines into the article space. I can't take it to DRN because there is no content dispute. The closest thing to a content dispute is the original RM (which is still open) which only concerns the spelling of one word. But my problem is Enkyo2's way of dealing with this, which is posting comments that belong on the talk page in the article itself. I am sorry if I sound hostile, but it's NOT fun trying to deal with issues like this exclusively from a phone that keeps trying to convert everything I type into Japanese. (That's also why it's difficult to post a full record of diffs.) Seriously. The other issue I'm dealing with at the moment is an obvious sockpuppet/vandal/POV-pusher, and I wasn't even able to open the SPI myself... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, since you have made absolutely no effort to explain the context of this disagreement, why should I (or any other editor here) just take your word that your view is right and the other editor's is wrong? Secondly, you still have not indicated how this is anything other than a content dispute. ANI is not a venue for solving content disputes; people have already given you links to appropriate venues. Continuing this discussion here would be a waste of time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- The user in question responded on his talk page, but the response essentially said "I don't care what the guideline is, and I'm not going to listen to you". There may be multiple interpretations of SELFREF, but surely inserting one's own controversial interpretation of a Wikipedia style guideline into an article in order to undermine an ongoing RM is near the bottom of potentially acceptable SELFREFS... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
No, go back and read it. I complained that he was posting problematic material in the article space, and that I was unable to discuss it with him constructively because he refuses to use plain English on the talk page. My header was poorly worded and tongue-in-cheek, but I have since made it very clear that when I said he "needs to start speaking English", I meant I want someone to help me convince him to be coherent in his talk page comments. I said he wouldn't respond to me in a reasonable, coherent manner (his response implied he hadn't even clicked on the link to SELFREF I provided, as he didn't refer to it, and some of his later comments had absolutely nothing to do with the argument). I figured going back and mining ancient diffs was a little off-topic -- I expected you to look at the diffs I did provide to see Enkyo making a !vote and then problematic self-withdrawal on one RM and posting another RM in which he was the OP but his incoherent argument made it seem like he actually wanted the page to stay where it is. I still don't want to go to DRN with this, because I already have gone there with a user conduct issue, and while DRN took me seriously the other user in the dispute didn't and I wound up taking it to ANI within a few days. This is not a content issue, it's a user behaviour issue, and you are the only one who has been interpreting it otherwise. GiantSnowman said the diff I presented was clearly problematic, Kudpung asked me what exactly I was looking for (at which point you closed before I got a chance to respond, with a sudden insistence that mine was a content dispute that belongs on DRN), PinkAmpersand said someone should help me, Lukeno and Dougweller both said you were wrong in ignoring what I was saying. No one has said this should not be dealt with here other than you (Kudpung hadn't seen enough evidence, which I admit was my fault), and given how many people have clearly disagreed with you on this I don't see why you continue to ignore all the evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have to agree here that Rjanag seems to be completely missing the point. The fact that is Enkyo2 has been adding a selfref into a footnote and that Hijiri reverted it would put it as a content dispute. However the issue is that Enkyo2 completely fails to understand why Hijiri is arguing against its inclusion. This is completely an editor issue and is likely related to a familiarity, or lack thereof, with the nuances of english. Blackmane (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban for Esoglou
I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Esoglou from the subject of homosexuality. The user has demonstrated a persistent intent to push a political agenda (and, having been topic-banned from abortion on two separate occasions for POV-pushing, isn't a stranger to this concept). Most recently, this has manifested itself in adding, three times in the past two days ([27] [28] [29]), the claim that homosexuality poses a "widespread threat to life and health". However, the problem goes back much further and indicates that Esoglou's primary goal is not to follow WP policy or improve articles but rather to promote his personal opinions about homosexuality and to make the Catholic Church look good (see eg. this edit, where he wrote a lovely little speech about the real reason the Holy See opposed a particular resolution). He has a persistent habit of doing his own "analysis" of reliable sources when they contradict his personal views ([30] convoluted language which he explained here is intended to undermine the sources, [31] "a word that does not appear in the document"), of otherwise engaging in original research (eg. [32]), and of adding frivolous citation tags for reliably sourced facts with which he personally disagrees (eg. [33], [34], [35]). I used to think that he was not a native English speaker and that his misrepresentation of sources proc eeded from a non-native speaker's misreading, but since he states he does speak English, I have to conclude that edits like this are deliberate misrepresentation rather than accidental. This is only a small selection in a long pattern; I would be happy to provide more examples or to explain anything here that is unclear (since some of it isn't immediately obvious if you haven't looked at the sources). As well, some of these edits were made repeatedly; I've mostly provided only one instance. Esoglou's reliance on agenda-based sources and promoting them over neutral scholarly ones almost goes without saying, and he also has a problem with plagiarism (which may extend beyond this topic area, I haven't looked at his other edits), which he has outright declared isn't a reason to revert his edits.
I warned the user yesterday that this had gone on for far too long and that with the next disruptive edit he made, I would report him to ANI. (I had previously warned him in March. What can I say, I'm nice.) He then restored his statement about homosexuality posing a "widespread threat to life and health." The user is clearly not interested in following policy where to do so conflicts with his desire to push his personal agenda, and a topic ban to end this disruption is long overdue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just seeking some clarification after reading the diffs, is his comment about "widespread threat to life and health" his own addition or is he quoting a Catholic text?--v/r - TP 22:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- See my comment to TenOfAllTrades below. My version of the text was intended to show what the church's position was without stating in Wikipedia's voice that these claims about homosexuality were factually true. Esoglou's edit deliberately sought to say that the church's claims were true. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's sourced to "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986, point 9, para. 2".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The paragraph is online, and it states: "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- While this might be a legitimate reference, the understanding of homosexuality has evolved, yes, even at the Vatican, in the 27 years since this letter was issued. In 1986, there was a high rate of AIDS in some American cities which received an enormous amount of media coverage. I imagine that is part of the subtext behind "threaten the lives" comment.
- If I was working on this article, I'd ask for a more recent reference (say, from 2000-2013) and also insist that this comment reflects an official position of the Vatican, not that it is a unambiguous fact and is true. That's just basic referencing knowledge which should be obvious to anyone who's edited for more than a few months. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The paragraph is online, and it states: "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) I'm getting stuck with the first diffs, there. It doesn't appear, on its face, that it is Esoglou saying that homosexuality poses "widespread threat to life and health", but rather reporting that that is the position – however bigoted, wrongheaded, and offensive – of the Roman Catholic church on the matter. Given that the article is Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, it is not immediately obvious that we shouldn't summarize or report on the church's statements and opinions on this topic—as long as we are careful to ensure they are properly representative (per WP:WEIGHT, etc.) and as long as we are careful not to endorse those views in Wikipedia's voice. (Far from making the Catholic church "look good", adding in this type of material ought to be embarrassing.) I'm not saying that a topic ban is or is not warranted, but I'm a bit concerned that the commentary offered here is not well supported by the diffs provided.
- Looking at the most recent thread on Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Alleged campaigning against decriminalization, it appears that Esoglou is engaged in a fairly calm, reasonable discussion about a point of contention. Esoglou offered a frank and apparently sincere apology regarding an error he made, and the discussion resulted in a reasonable compromise edit satisfactory to all parties, including Roscelese, which seemed to best reflect the sources at hand.
- Honestly, quickly glancing at the article's talk page, it's a bit difficult to untangle who is (most) worthy of trouting. In bickering between Roscelese, Esoglou, and Contaldo80 last week at Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#"Inhuman", the question about whether or not the Holy See described gay sex as "inhuman" got bumped over to RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holy See document. It appears that the only two independent editors to comment on the issue came down more on the side of Esoglou's interpretation of the sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- With regard to your first point, you will note in the edits in question that I specifically addressed this concern: to convey the church position without promoting factual inaccuracies, I wrote "what the church claims are risks" and "may supposedly constitute a widespread threat." Esoglou removed this text. There is no way to read this as just conveying the church position. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am looking at the first three diffs that you presented above: [36] [37] [38]. In all three cases, it is quite clear that the claims about homosexuality are attributed to the church, and are not in Wikipedia's voice. In every case, the sentence at issue opens with "The Catholic Church has said that...". Are you saying that Esoglou's edits aren't a factual representation of what the Catholic church has said?
- It's neither necessary nor productive to insert multiple hedging statements inside every sentence where we talk about religious beliefs or dogma. In our article on Jesus, we write "Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return." We don't say – and we don't need to say – "Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by a purported Holy Spirit, born of a woman who claimed to be a virgin, performed acts that Christians claim were miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion, rose from a poorly-documented death, and ascended into a supposed heaven..."
- Above, Liz raises a much more pertinent point, in that the material cited is some decades old, and may not reflect current Roman Catholic beliefs. As such, it may be worthwhile to review the content in that light, and consider whether Wikipedia should address it in the context of historical or current Catholic doctrine—particularly given that it is prominently placed in the lede of the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- It seems obvious to me that there is a difference between non-falsifiable religious beliefs and demonstrably false scientific claims that happen to be located in a religious article, but this is not really the venue for that discussion and I won't waste your time or my own with breaking that down. The statements about the "harm" of homosexuality aren't the only false claims that Esoglou has inserted, and I've also documented a selection of instances of original research and frivolous tagging intended to make the articles conform to his own personal beliefs rather than to reliable sources. If it were only the first three diffs, I would not have brought the issue to ANI. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- With regard to your first point, you will note in the edits in question that I specifically addressed this concern: to convey the church position without promoting factual inaccuracies, I wrote "what the church claims are risks" and "may supposedly constitute a widespread threat." Esoglou removed this text. There is no way to read this as just conveying the church position. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I will be extremely honest and frank here by saying that both Roscelese and Esoglou are intractable POV-pushers bent on shaping articles to their world view.The only way the integrity of Wikipedia is maintained is by both of them canceling each other out. Therefore I will only support a topic-ban for Esoglou if one is also enacted for Roscelese as well. AN/I is a poor venue to bring this kind of content dispute, it is more of an attempt to summon a lynch-mob to remove your competition from the article so that you can steamroll it. If Roscelese truly seeks relief then she will take the time and file a WP:RFCU which would be the best venue for discipline. Elizium23 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)- Alternately, if you have any evidence of my inserting insulting factual inaccuracy, deliberately misrepresenting sources, engaging in original research, or wasting everyone's time with frivolous tags, you could start a thread to present those diffs, as I have done. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have evidence of your consistently condescending attitude which always hovers at the twilight edge of WP:CIVIL, and there is clear evidence of your tendency to edit-war in the last two years' worth of block log, which Esoglou does not have. He is admittedly disingenuous and hard to reason with at times, but I personally feel that his abortion topic-ban was an unfortunate casualty as a result of his indelicacy around such a contentious topic which has had its share of trips to WP:ARBCOM. Esoglou should be commended and awarded a Purple Heart for his ability and willingness to step into contentious topics such as homosexuality and defend the alternative viewpoint, which is one that is vanishingly rare around these parts, and probably always has been. Wikipedia needs both of you, but there are more of you than there are of him and me, which is what concerns me the most with these frequent trips to WP:ANI and other drama-venues in search of a lynch mob. Elizium23 (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm curious, and I'm simultaneously too lazy to look at your contribs for this, so I'll ask you for testimony on this. What dispute resolution venues did you attempt before coming here? You've mentioned two warnings to his user talk page. Apparently this article went to WP:RSN previously, which clearly wasn't too satisfying for you. Did you try WP:DRN? Did you try WP:RFC? WikiProject talk pages? Anything else which would befit a content dispute before zooming straight into ANI looking for a drama fest? Elizium23 (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- RSN is not a venue for user behavior. (Nor is DR or RFC.) As should be obvious, when consensus at RSN disagreed with me, I went with consensus rather than continuing to try to undermine the sources. If the community here thinks ANI isn't the right venue, I'd be happy to try RFC/U instead. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Alternately, if you have any evidence of my inserting insulting factual inaccuracy, deliberately misrepresenting sources, engaging in original research, or wasting everyone's time with frivolous tags, you could start a thread to present those diffs, as I have done. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand Roscelese's objection to my changing Contaldo's "The Catholic Church also sets out a number of minor arguments against homosexuality ... is detrimental to health" to something closer to what is in the source (here) and finally to a quotation of the exact words used in the source (here). Nor do I understand her objection to this well-sourced edit, which replaced her POV text that presented the Holy See as "claiming" that a proposed resolution would lead to "discrimination against heterosexuals" (in reality against states that upheld the view that marriage by definition is between a woman and a man) and that the Holy See's representative "compared homosexuality to pedophilia and incest" (it took a consultation at RSN to get her to accept that this last phrase was POV). Nor could I understand fully her objection to my changing from her deprecated expression "he points out" because, as is her custom, instead of removing whatever part of my edit she found objectionable, she immediately reverted the whole of it, including other material that is undoubtedly well sourced. I do not understand her objection above to my saying that a journalist's attribution to a document of the Holy See of an expression not in fact found in the document should be reported as the journalist's account, not as plain fact, a question that I also brought to RSN, where agreement has been expressed with my view. Nor do I understand why she sees as mere original research an edit that attributed to its author the idea (which Roscelese insists should be presented as plain fact) that the word παῖς "almost always had a sexual connotation", an idea contradicted by the account given by all dictionaries of ancient Greek, including the one that Roscelese allowed to stay in the article, but only in a footnote. Nor do I understand why she called frivolous my request for a citation in support of the idea that historically the word ἀρσενοκοίτης was not used to refer to homosexuality: this too had to be brought to RSN, where there was consensus that the source that Roscelese claimed as the basis for this statement did not in fact support it. With regard to her habitual use of "frivolous" as a pretext for not responding to such requests, I must add that, a few hours before she brought her complaint against me here, I sincerely thanked her for implicitly admitting, by actually attending to the matter I raised, that "frivolous" was not a fair description of one such request. However, she attended to it only after another editor had intervened in support of my questioning of her text.
It is not worth while raising here questions about Roscelese's own edits, such as her removal of a surely relevant statement by the Holy See's New York representative that: "The Holy See continues to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons should be avoided and urges States to do away with criminal penalties against them", followed immediately by her insertion of the claim that "The church hierarchy campaigns against the decriminalization of homosexuality", her presentation of the Holy See's representative in Geneva in 2011 as "opposing efforts at the 16th session of the UN Human Rights Council to work towards ending violence and criminal sanction based on sexual orientation", when in fact he did not oppose adoption of the draft resolution and, even if he did, this was scarcely an NPOV way of presenting such opposition, and her insistence that, although the Irish bishops clearly wrote that, if the definition of "marriage" were changed in a certain way, they "could not" carry out certain functions, they really stated in that document, according to Roscelese, that they "would not" carry them out - until yet another consultation at RSN settled that. To her credit I must say that, after I challenged her interpretation of a Reuters account of hostile comments on Italian media concerning a statement by the Holy See's New York representative, she did not insist when presented with the full text of what the representative said.
I recognize that Roscelese is annoyed at my poor attempts to ensure balance in Wikipedia articles. Even if I sometimes wonder if her declared sexual preference may underlie her annoyance, I in no way question her good faith in describing me as incompetent, unable to read or write English, and so on. Instead of annoying me, these descriptions now amuse me, although I suppose I reacted differently before I got used to them. I have suggested to another editor who was annoyed by the epithets she threw at him that he should take the same attitude, but this he found too difficult. As I confessed to him, too often I fail to hide my amusement. It is hard to hide it in cases like this. Esoglou (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think I'll let this comment, particularly the beginning of the last paragraph, speak for itself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Even if I sometimes wonder if her declared sexual preference may underlie her annoyance That is totally out of line, Esoglou. Just unacceptable. Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I concur. Roscelese and I very rarely agree on content, but the comments made about her personal life and preferences is completely over the line and unacceptable. GregJackP Boomer! 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize to Liz and GregJackP and to anybody else offended, for saying that this is an idea that sometimes comes to my mind but that I cast aside, believing instead that Roscelese is acting in good faith. Roscelese herself has not objected to my mentioning my rejection of this idea, perhaps because she explicitly says that I do not act in good faith but am out to advance an agenda. Not even here have I said that her personal beliefs are what inspires her editing. Esoglou (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you were offended is very different from I'm sorry I said something offensive. It's the same as the difference between I'm sorry I did wrong, and I'm sorry I got caught. There's no excuse – none – to pull another editor's sexual orientation (openly declared or not) into a content dispute. If this were really an idea that crossed your mind and then was immediately discarded, there would be no reason at all to mention it.
- I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, as purely on the merits of the diffs presented here I felt that Roscelese was reading too much into your edits. Now, however, you have clearly crossed into personalizing the dispute. Drawing attention to the other party's sexual orientation as if it were in any way relevant to this discussion strongly suggests that you aren't capable of approaching LGBT-related topics calmly and neutrally, and indicates that a topic ban may be warranted after all. Frankly, Roscelese didn't do a very persuasive job of selling the topic ban; you damned yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that it is shameful to be "queer", the term Roscelese herself uses? There is nothing shameful about one's sexual orientation No more than about one's religious beliefs. I think you should apologize to Roscelese for thus insulting her. Unlike you, she doesn't think it offensive to describe herself in that way, and I presume you don't think she is saying something offensive when she refers to my religious beliefs. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- ....just...gobsmacked. Support topic ban, support block for trolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. Support topic ban and block per TenOfAllTrades. Esoglou, it isn't about me being offended, it is about inappropriate comments as TOAT explained above. GregJackP Boomer! 23:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well then, if the community judges that Wikipedians should be banned for admitting they had wondered whether an editor's edits on the topic of red hair were influenced by the fact of having red hair, I presume that, along with banning me for admitting such a thought but at the same time declaring my belief that the editor's edits were nonetheless honest and good-faith, it will also ban Roscelese for actually declaring that my religious beliefs are the reason for my edits. Is that the community's judgement? Esoglou (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. Support topic ban and block per TenOfAllTrades. Esoglou, it isn't about me being offended, it is about inappropriate comments as TOAT explained above. GregJackP Boomer! 23:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- ....just...gobsmacked. Support topic ban, support block for trolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that it is shameful to be "queer", the term Roscelese herself uses? There is nothing shameful about one's sexual orientation No more than about one's religious beliefs. I think you should apologize to Roscelese for thus insulting her. Unlike you, she doesn't think it offensive to describe herself in that way, and I presume you don't think she is saying something offensive when she refers to my religious beliefs. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize to Liz and GregJackP and to anybody else offended, for saying that this is an idea that sometimes comes to my mind but that I cast aside, believing instead that Roscelese is acting in good faith. Roscelese herself has not objected to my mentioning my rejection of this idea, perhaps because she explicitly says that I do not act in good faith but am out to advance an agenda. Not even here have I said that her personal beliefs are what inspires her editing. Esoglou (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I concur. Roscelese and I very rarely agree on content, but the comments made about her personal life and preferences is completely over the line and unacceptable. GregJackP Boomer! 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Even if I sometimes wonder if her declared sexual preference may underlie her annoyance That is totally out of line, Esoglou. Just unacceptable. Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that you understand what the issue is. The comment on Roscelese's sexual preferences being a basis for her edit's are not acceptable under any conditions. Period. I do not doubt that I would disagree with her on the content, there is not much that we have agreed on. If she has made comments about your religious beliefs it is also inappropriate, and I would not hesitate to tell her that. The issue I saw is that you were confronted by it and either don't hear it or don't understand. I haven't seen the same response from her. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 11:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- You misread. What I said was that Roscelese's sexual preferences were not a basis for her edits, in spite of my sometimes wondering whether it was so. Roscelese on the contrary has accused me of editing on the basis of my religious beliefs. Esoglou (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I've gone over this thread two or three times now, and, honestly, I see no clear and obvious reason for a proposed ban. On that basis, I would have to say that I cannot support one, and that, honestly, without such evidence being presented, there would be and is little reason for any additional commentary from Roscelese or others. If you have good, solid evidence to support the call for a ban, please present it. Otherwise, if it is not presented, I think the thread should probably be closed. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Can you clarify whether you mean that you would like more diffs or explanation of the existing diffs (as I said, this is merely a selection, and sometimes the fact that Esoglou is eg. outright fabricating things isn't obvious if you haven't read the sources), or that you disagree that this behavior is disruptive? In your opinion, would an RFC/U be a better format? (Not that ANI is an improper venue for topic ban proposals, see elsewhere on the page, but RFC/U better lends itself to explanations of why edits are bad, perhaps.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
As a new editor on this article ~ and as someone who isn't a Roman Catholic or a homosexual ~ who is concerned about non-neutral editors pushing their own agendas, my impression so far is that it is actually Roscelese rather than Esoglou who is pushing a personal political agenda in the article. I am familiar with Esoglou on the Catholic Church and some other church-related articles. I actually consider him to be particularly fastidious, sometimes even to a fault, when it comes to articles using and reflecting reliable sources. I have not so far noticed any evidence of him pushing a personal agenda on the Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article. The same, however, cannot be said for Roscelese who has repeatedly edited the article in ways which distort the facts by making universal generalisations based on particular examples. I have at least twice asked that Roscelene stop editing the article in this way. Afterwriting (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- As another editor on this article I have to say that I share Roscelese's concerns. I think it's very important for the article to set out the position of the Roman Catholic Church on various aspects relating to the issue of homosexuality (but also including dissent and the real world impact from that position). Where Esoglou does this then his contributions are very welcome. The problem I have, however, is that he does not want to seem to summarise anything in the article. If he thinks a point is not propely balanced he simply responds by removing the whole section and replaces it with a chunk of text taken from some Vatican document of the other - thinking that only the Church's own words carry any weight. But this makes the article awkward to read. In truth these document are often long-winded and deliberately obtuse. The most salient points will easily be missed by all but the most patient and determined reader. There's also a bit of 'sleight of hand' in them in the sense that they seem to say one thing on the surface, but the intention can be actually quite different. I'd like to see the aricle be a bit more straight-talking and less "tricksy", and I'm not sure Esoglou can do that. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is it the community's opinion that RFC/U would be a better venue for this than AN/I? I would be able to explain Esoglou's insertion of original research and factual inaccuracy in a little clearer detail by referencing the sources which don't contain the claims he inserted. Obviously his attributing my disagreement with him to my sexual orientation would also come up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
There are two POV pushing and largely SPA editors who are constantly attempting to distort the neutrality of the article with their often poorly written edits containing thinly veiled personal commentary and soapboxing as well as reliance on some highly selective and POV citations. Esolglou is *not* one of these two editors. Anyone should be able to see from the talk page who are most concerned to push their own personal agendas as well as being constantly offensive. Don't let these two editors fool you that Esolglou is somehow the culprit. Afterwriting (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I know that you think that, but you haven't actually presented any evidence, so I'm not sure how you expect anyone to take you seriously. Please don't mistake your sulking over my adding reliably cited information that you find personally distasteful for a legitimate behavioral issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is typical of the bitchy comments which Roscelese keeps serving up as her way of trying to bully and intimidate other editors on the talk pages of articles and other editors. It is her and the other idiological agenda editor who keep distorting the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article with their simplistic generalisations based on selective sources. She doesn't fool me for a moment that this is all really about her misuse of Wikipedia to campaign for her own personal agendas. We should not have to keep tolerating this kind of soapboxing nonsense. Afterwriting (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not going to engage with you in this thread anymore. If you're just going to complain about my personality instead of presenting any evidence of wrongdoing, there isn't exactly anything I can refute; it's all very well to claim there's a content issue, but the fact that when confronted with a request for any evidence all you can say is "she's sooooo bitchy!" should make it clear that that's not what's going on here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Seeking topic ban for Hgrosser
I am seeking a topic ban for Hgrosser (talk · contribs) from further edits related to the non-notable individual Nicole Hamilton, author of Hamilton C shell, also mentioned in C shell#Influence. His sole objective appears confined to calling unnecessary attention to Ms. Hamilton's private life and to her gender transition, contrary to our guidelines.
Edit history:
- C shell: 10 edits, beginning 6 March 2013 with this result, and 4 edits beginning 26 August 2013
- Hamilton C shell: 2 edits, beginning 25 August 2013
- User talk:Hgrosser: Warnings 9 March 2013 and 25 August 2013
- User talk:Msnicki: Hgrosser's response 26 August 2013
Though Ms. Hamilton's product appears notable based on multiple print sources, no such sources appear to exist to establish notability for Ms. Hamilton. Further, notability is not inherited nor is there evidence Ms. Hamilton might be notable for other reasons as might apply under WP:ANYBIO. Most of the available sources are Usenet posts and online blogs by her and her friends. All are clearly WP:QUESTIONABLE. The only possibly WP:RELIABLE source is an iTunes recording released by Stanford University of a panel discussion held at Stanford in 2007. But all of the content pertaining to Ms. Hamilton is her speaking about her own life in her own words, making it unmistakably WP:PRIMARY. Ms. Hamilton is simply not notable.
Nonetheless, Hgrosser insists on calling attention to the private matter of her gender transition in the late 90s by inserting her former name in unnecessarily prominent ways into these two articles, doubly so when the main subject isn't even her software. This information is irrelevant to any discussion of her software product and the inclusion is unnecessarily intrusive into a non-notable individual's private life, disrespectful and contrary to our guidelines. Further, he's been warned twice.
From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."
And from Wikipedia:LGBT#Guidelines, "The Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidelines on identity indicate to refer to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves. ... In cases where a gender variant person was not notable under their prior name, but has subsequently confirmed a different gender identity, the prior name should be limited to the main article. There is likely no need to bring attention to this by adding to the lede or an infobox. (See Do No Harm.)" In this particular case, there is no main article on Ms. Hamilton and no need whatsoever to call attention.
Our guidelines notwithstanding, I'm aware there is always a tabloid fascination among some with the private lives of others, especially when there's a titillating sexual aspect. Hgrosser is not the first editor to have discovered, by comparing early and current documents describing her C shell, that Ms. Hamilton must have changed her name and gender. He's also not the first to decide this fact needed to be shared with the widest possible audience. To avoid having the information come and go in very likely completely inappropriate ways, which by itself would call unnecessary attention, my solution was a footnote to the author's name in the lede of the Hamilton C shell article, stating that she's discussed her transition at the Stanford panel discussion and giving the iTunes citation. If you really, really think you need to know more, you can go listen to her tell her story in her own words.
Hgrosser was the first to insert her former name into the C shell article as well, where it truly is peripheral and completely inappropriate. This resulted in his first warning. But recognizing that if he had tried to insert it into that article as well, others might try also, I chose the more discreet approach of citing only the footnote contained in the Hamilton C shell article in the C shell article. I believe both articles now contain absolutely all that needs to be said on this private matter of this private individual's private life and probably more.
Hgrosser has been warned twice, the second time that if he did this again, I would take it to WP:ANI. Here we are. After the second warning, he decided my citing only the footnote in the C shell article wasn't good enough, and that the whole thing, including the mention of the old name had to go into the C shell article as well. In his defense, Hgrosser argues that the name change is "confusing" and needs to be clarified. But (a) it obviously wasn't too confusing for too long to Hgrosser and (b) we are often confused by the things other people do in their private lives but that does not entitle us to find the answers on Wikipedia.
There is simply no valid encyclopedic purpose to Hgrosser's behavior and it is contrary to our guidelines. The only edits Hgrosser has made to the C shell and to the Hamilton C shell articles have been for the sole purpose calling undue attention to Ms. Hamilton's personal life.
I have no objection to Hgrosser editing either of these articles (or any other) for any other encyclopedic purpose should he ever have one, but I am seeking a topic ban on the subject of the non-notable individual, Nicole Hamilton. Msnicki (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sheesh. The issue is, as Hgrosser describes, that our sources for Hamilton Shell say that it was written by Douglas Hamilton. Our Manual of Style, as expounded ad infinitum above, says we need to say it was written by Nicole Hamilton. There is no way around writing "Nicole Hamilton was, at the time, Douglas Hamilton," and backing this with a reliable reference. We don't have to go into long details about the transition but we absolutely have to write this, otherwise we have an article that says A and a source that says B. And it looks like this is all Hgrosser has done, one sentence, one ref. Far, far less than the wall of text just above. --GRuban (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- (EC) While I appreciate this is a very sensitive area, I don't see the need for a topic ban at this time, the number of edits are small and it seems clear Hgrosser is fully willing to discuss it. Problems can and should be resolved via discussion and WP:Dispute resolution (probably WP:BLP/N) with recognition that given the sensitivity and WP:BLP issues involved, consensus should be reached before any changes are made rather than following BRD. While I agree we should not draw unnecessary attention to the subjects personal life, I think Hgrosser has a point that there is merit to mention the name change in one or both articles in some way since the limited notability which results in the subject being mentioned in the articles comes from the shell and as I understand it, she was involved in the shell before the name change and so people may recognise the older name and be confused, in addition to the fact that other documents including ones written by the subject herself may use her older name. I would note both articles currently use sources which are cited under each name, whether or not these sources are useful I have not looked at. And I am not saying we definitely need to mention both names in both article, simply that it seems to be a valid thing to discuss and we should WP:AGF that Hgrosser wants to make the change not to bring undue attention to the subjects personal life but because they feel not mentioning it causes unnecessary confusion. Whether or not it is necessary to mention and how is of course ultimately something that should be resolved via discussion. Personally, I would agree a footnote is probably best although I would note that the footnote which you seem to support where the transition is explicitly mentioned seems more intrusitive than simply mentioning the name change, but that's neither here nor there at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh wow, I just noticed the footnote to a footnote of another article inside the huge wall of text: <ref>[[Hamilton C shell#cite note-3]]</ref> . Msnicki, you absolutely can not do that. One article can not cite another Wikipedia article as a reference. Our articles are not reliable sources - they can change at any moment, they are written by anonymous editors, and it is a non-trivial effort to find who wrote any given line. Since Nicole formerly Douglas Hamilton is neither crucial to C Shell nor, as you write, notable enough for her own article, I'm just going to elide her name from the C Shell article and hopefully reduce the field of conflict by half. --GRuban (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, it is not really that I "support" the footnote I've written but the edit history of the article that tells me other editors will be satisfied with nothing less. Case in point, why we are here.
GRuban, the reference in one article to a footnote in the other is certainly not being offered as evidence of anything. It's only at best a "see also" on a minor detail that certainly doesn't need to go into C shell#See also. But to the extent it matters, if you click the link, you learn there is an apparently WP:RELIABLE source. If there is a better way of coding that, I am all for it. Hgrosser raises the concern that a cite note might be renumbered; I tried inserting an template:anchor instead but while wikilinking to it will scroll the page, it will not highlight citation. I am happy to promise to monitor the articles and fix the link if it does get broken.Msnicki (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose topic ban as unjustified. The rest is a content dispute. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just as the courts, when someone files a frivolous lawsuit, not only dismiss it, but impose sanctions on the filer (such as making him pay the defendant’s attorney fees), I feel there should be some cost to Msnicki for bringing this frivolous/vindictive case, such as perhaps a 24-hour ban on editing. Hgrosser (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's not warranted either. Blocks are preventative not punitive. A one-time overreaction is not something that is sufficiently frivolous to result in any sort of concrete sanction; WP:TROUT at best. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits
User:Davidbena has been confronted by multiple users with the basic Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays and still attempts to push the religious POV that Bible is infallible and thus supersedes every contemporary historical scholarship. I even warned him that he will be reported here for disruptive edits and this has not stopped him from pushing his POV. Basically, he persisted in violating WP:NOR, WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:Advocacy and has shown contempt for WP:SOURCES and WP:PRIMARY. As you can see from the evidence shown below, he even scorns the possibility of getting a ban.
Evidence: [39], [40], [41], [42], and [43]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
No. The complaint is worded in an exceedingly non-neutral manner suggesting a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. This is a clear case of WP:BITE. Ignocrates (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Can you point to which guideline or policy says that complaints about other users must be neutral?--v/r - TP 00:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- You are right of course; a complaint doesn't have to be worded in a neutral manner. However, it makes the possibility of WP:BOOMERANG less likely if we stick to the objective facts. Ignocrates (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Can you point to which guideline or policy says that complaints about other users must be neutral?--v/r - TP 00:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- What's so complicated about finding secondary sources? He does not want to do it and he scorns at it. I have nothing against his religion, since I have warned someone seemingly atheist in precisely the same terms, see [44]. So, I warned a religious POV-pusher and an atheist POV-pusher, I am not biased for or against religion. If he would have chosen to obey Wikipedia policies after being warned, I would not have had anything against him. The matter has been settled once and for all by WP:RNPOV and all editors have to obey this policy. And even more the basic policies of WP:SOURCES and WP:PRIMARY, which apply to all articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- And I do not have to be neutral in respect to someone violating basic Wikipedia policies. I am very much biased in favor of all users obeying them. This is a case wherein being non-neutral does not violate WP:NPOV. No editor is required to be neutral from applying basic Wikipedia policies. All editors are encouraged to apply them and correct those who fail to apply them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry you are having such a bad experience, but I have found Davidbena to be very reasonable when not being threatened. I note that he received a warning on his user page before having WP:TPG explained to him. Ignocrates (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- And I do not have to be neutral in respect to someone violating basic Wikipedia policies. I am very much biased in favor of all users obeying them. This is a case wherein being non-neutral does not violate WP:NPOV. No editor is required to be neutral from applying basic Wikipedia policies. All editors are encouraged to apply them and correct those who fail to apply them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- I do not hold against him his error, I hold against him persisting in error. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, let's try some creative problem-solving here. I advised Davidbena to read up on Wiki policies and guidelines and find a quiet place to work to develop his editing skills. I think he will be fine if he does that. All of this talk page verbosity aside, he has had very little real impact on any articles. A temporary 1RR might be considered until he gets up to speed. He can't engage in an edit war by definition with a 1RR. Would that satisfy your objections? Ignocrates (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I do not object to this solution. But, you are not an admin and here is the admin noticeboard, they decide what's to be done. Non-admins may only report problems here, they do not decide solutions. If it will eventually end in a ban, it is better that the ban is applied sooner rather than later. He has expressed the idea that the fact that he studied at an Yeshiva and that he employs "Jewish logic" (sic) gives him a blank permit to engage in original research, in copiously citing primary sources and an exemption from using secondary sources. Until he reforms such attitude, nothing good is to come from him as a Wikipedia editor, except perhaps spell-checking articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone is free to make suggestions for how to resolve disputes. Rather than meting out sanctions to a new editor, I propose that Davidbena abide by a voluntary 1RR restriction for the next two weeks until he gets up to speed. Ignocrates (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I have seen the abovementioned comments, and I can explain my behavior. I was speaking strictly to co-editors and trying to sway their opinion through logic. I have meanwhile submitted a new article below to Wikipedia which I have, both, written and translated from the original Aramaic. Davidbena (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:TLDR by Davidbena--v/r - TP 00:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Yemenite Ketubba (Marriage Contract)[Yemenite Jews] IntroductionThe ketubba was enacted by Šimon b. Šaṭaḥ (TB Šabbat 14b) so that it might not be a light thing for a man to divorce his wife.[1] The enactment provides for a man's wife to receive a fixed sum of money, usually accruing from his property, in the event of his divorcing her or of his predeceasing her. R. Šim‘on b. Gamli’el, however, held the view that the ketubba was a teaching derived from the Law (TB Ketubbot 10a). Whatever its origins, the practice has spread itself since ancient times amongst all the communities of Israel, the law prescribing that the ketubba be drawn up before the night of the wedding, and read aloud during the ceremony. In Yemen, the custom was to read the ketubba before the actual betrothals took place, so that if the bridegroom wished to back down, he could still do so. The reading was performed by the mori (rabbi) who read the contract while standing. When the mori concluded its reading, he would roll it up and hand the ketubba to the bridegroom, at which time the bridegroom stood up and commenced to make the benedictions and the actual betrothals.[2] As in most contracts made between two parties, there are mutual obligations, conditions and terms of reciprocity for such a contract to hold up as good. Thus said R. Yannai: The conditions written in a ketubba, [when breached], are tantamount to [forfeiture of] the ketubba.[3] A woman who denied coitus unto her husband, a condition of the ketubba, was considered legal grounds for forfeiture of her marriage contract, with the principal and additional jointure being written off.[4] (See translated text of ketubba for a broader understanding of these terms.) In former times, they would deduct seven denarii per week from the dower's price of her ketubba, for as long as she persisted in her state of rebellion against her husband by denying him to cohabit with her. The seven denarii were fixed in accordance with the number of unwritten obligations a woman was seen as having towards her husband: to grind, to bake, to cook, to launder, to breastfeed her son, to make-up his bed, and to spin wool.[5] A man, likewise, if he denied coitus unto his wife, was formerly compelled to add an additional three denarii per week unto the dower's price of her ketubba, until at last he acquiesced to his wife's desires. These three denarii were fixed in accordance with the three major responsibilities a man was seen as having towards his wife from the standpoint of the Law (Ex. 21:10): to provide food, to provide clothing and jewellery, and to cohabit with his wife.[6] In Yemen, the financial obligations pledged by a man to his wife were never seen as fictitious, as they are often viewed today. Rather, all obligations were legally binding and enforced by the courts. If a man divorced his wife without due cause, the court would oblige him to pay his wife the monies pledged in her ketubba.[7] However, in cases where the woman sued for a divorce, it was sometimes seen as a breach of contract, and the husband was not always compelled in such cases to pay her ketubba. One such case had arisen in Ṣan‘ā’ where the daughter of the Chief Rabbi and President of the Court, Yiḥye Yiṣḥāq Halevi (1867–1932), was married to Yiḥye b. Nissim Manṣūra, and their marriage had fallen apart. The woman returned to live in her father's house, without receiving a divorce. Her father soon began to appeal to his fellow jurists to force the husband to dissolve their marriage by giving the estranged wife a bill of divorce, as also to make good all payments in her ketubba. The Rabbi's daughter claimed that she found her husband intolerable, or what is known in Hebrew as me’is ‛alay.[8] The fellow jurists, R. Yiḥye Qafiḥ and R. Yiḥye Abyaḏ, contended that he ought, indeed, to divorce his wife, but not be compelled to pay her ketubba, citing that a woman was not to be believed when saying that her husband was intolerable, lest perhaps she laid eyes upon some other man. Now there arose a great dispute over this matter, dividing the community. Some said that he ought to divorce his wife and to pay her ketubba, while others said that he ought to divorce her, yet not pay her ketubba. At length, after much coercive speech and prodding, the husband divorced his wife, yet was she not entitled to any settlement. He eventually went off and was married to a different woman.[9] The actual payment of a woman's ketubba is regulated by Jewish law. Maran (Rabbi Yosef Karo) wrote: A widow does not exact her ketubba, the principal (‛iqar) and the additional jointure (tosefeth), except by being administered a sworn oath.[10] The purpose of the oath was to ensure that, when the widow came to exact the pledges made by her hus-band in the ketubba, she had not taken away, prior to the Court's dispensing of her husband's property, any of her husband's goods, or had forfeited her ketubba, or sold it to her husband.[11] Even so, in Yemen, the custom was different. According to a responsum written by the Court at Ṣan‘ā’ in 1911 to R. Avraham Kook, Chief Rabbi of Jaffa: "...they (the Court) would, for the most part, strive to make a com-promise between them (i.e., the widow and the heirs to their father's pro-perty), while forgoing the necessity of bringing her under an oath. In most cases, her sons are the heirs, and are quick to exonerate their mother. But those heirs who stand on the letter of the law, they bring her under oath." The ketubba which we have selected is unique in that it bears the signature of one of the greatest Rabbis ever produced by Yemen, viz., R. Yiḥye b. Yosef Ṣāliḥ, known by the acronym Mahriṣ. Today, it is found in the Ketubba collections at the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of New York, collection no. JTS KET 412, written on paper and measuring 32.8 x 22.1 cm. The handwriting is believed to be that of Mahriṣ. The year in which the ketubba was written was 1747 CE (corresponding with the year 2058 of the Seleucid Era, or what is also known as the year of Alexander, or the Era of Contracts), written in the city of Ṣan‘ā’, some sixty-seven years after the community's return from their Exile to Mawza‛. The old Jewish Quarter (al-Sā’ila) had been demised of its former status, while the new quarter had just been built without the walls of the old city. During that same year, the community would lose their respected and beloved Rabbi, David b. Yiḥye Ḥoṭer, who served as President of the Court at Ṣan‘ā’. So, too, the secretary of the Court, R. Yosef b. Sa‛adia Bešārī, a man responsible for making a written record of all deeds transacted in the Court, had ceased to work in this profession. בשם רחמן בְּשֵׁם אֲשֶׁר לוֹ הַגְּדוּלָּה / וּמרוֹמָם עַל כָּל בְּרָכָה וּתהִלָּה / בְּשָׁעָה מְעוּלָּה וְעוֹנָה מְהוּלָּלָה / וְיָד וְשֵׁם וּתהִלָּה / וְדִיצָה וְצַהֲלָה / וְחֵן וְחֶסֶד וְחֶמלָה / וּמִלּוּי כָּל שְׁאָלָה / לֶחָתָן וְלַכַּלָּה / וּלכָל הַקְּהִלָּה הַנִּקהָלָה / זֶרַע יִשׂרָאֵל הַסְּגֻלָּה / יָשִׂישׂוּ וְיִשׂמָחוּ / וְכַשּׁוֹשָׁן יַפרִיחוּ / וְכַבֹּשֶׂם יָפִיחוּ / וְיִבָּנוּ וְיַצלִיחוּ / כְּוַיִּבנוּ וַיַּצלִיחוּ / מָצָא אִשָּׁה מָצָא טוֹב וַיָּפֶק רָצוֹן מֵיְיָ / בַּיִת וָהוֹן נַחֲלַת אָבוֹת וּמֵיְיָ אִשָּׁה מַשׂכָּלֶת בְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבָּא דְּהוּא תִּשׁעָה יוֹמִין לְחֹדֶשׁ שְׁבָט שְׁנַת תְּרֵין אַלפִין וְחַמשִׁין וְתַמנֵי שְׁנִין לִשׁטַרֵי בְּמַאתָּא קַאע בִּיר אַלעֲזַבּ דְּעַל בֵּירִין דְּמַיִין נָבעִין דִּילַהּ מוֹתְבַהּ בְּיוֹמָא דְּנָן בִּזכוּת אַברָהָם אֲבוּנָא אֵיך יוֹסֵף ןׂ סַאלִם ןׂ סְלַימַאן אלהשׁאשׁ אלמְכֻנָּא אלפְתַיחִי חַתנָא אֲמַר לַהּ לגַזאל בִּנתּ יוסף ןׂ סַאלִם צַאלִח הַמְּכֻנָּא אלחַידַּאנִי כַּלְּתָא בְּתוּלְתָא הֲוִי לִי לְאִנתּוּ כְּדָת מֹשֶׁה וְיִשׂרָאֵל וַאֲנָא בְּמֵימְרָא דִּשׁמַיָּא אֶפלַח וְאוֹקֵיר וַאֲסוֹבַר וַאֲזוּן וַאֲפַרנֵיס וַאֲכַסֵּי יָתִיכִי כְּהִלכָּת גּוּברִין יְהוּדָאִין דְּפָלְחִין וּמוֹקְרִין וּמסוֹבְרִין וְזָנִין וּמפַרנְסִין וּמכַסִּין יָת נְשֵׁיהוֹן בִּקשׁוֹט וִיהֵבנָא לִיכִי מוֹהַר בְּתוּלִיכִי כֶּסֶף זוּזֵי מָאתַן דְּאִנּוּן מִזּוּזֵי כַּספָּא דָּכיָא עַסרִין זוּזִין וְחַמשָׁה זוּזֵי דְּחַאזוּ לִיכִי וּמזוֹנִיכִי וּכסוּתִיכִי וְסוּפקִיכִי וּמֵיעַל לְוָתִיכִי כְּאוֹרַח כָּל אַרעָא וּצבִיאַת כַּלתָא דָּא וַהֲוָת לֵיהּ לְאִנתּוּ וְדָא נְדּוּניָא דְּהַנעֵילַת לֵיהּ מִאיַה' קַפלֵה פֻצַׂה הַכֹּל נִתקַבַּל חָתָן זֶה וּבָא לְיָדוֹ וְנַעֲשָׂה בִּרשׁוּתוֹ וְזָקַף הַכֹּל עַל עַצמוֹ בְּמִלוָה וּרשׁוּ וְדִי יָהֵב לַהּ בַּעלַהּ חַתנָא דְּנָן בְּמַתַּנתָּא קַמַּייתָּא מִאיַה' קַפלֵה פֻצַׂה וְדָרְתָא בִּמדוֹר יְהוּדָאֵי בְּמַפְּקָנַהּ וּמַעֲלָנַה וְכָל צוּרכָּהּ דְּחַאזוּ לַהּ מֵאַרעִית תְּהוֹמָא וְעַד רוּם רְקִיעָא וְרָצָה וְהוֹסִיף לָהּ תּוֹסֶפֶת בְּסוֹף מוּהרָהּ מִאיַה' קַפלֵה פֻצַׂה אַלכֻּל מִן הַדֵׂה אלקִפַאל אלפֻצַׂה אלמַדׂכּוּרַה פַוק אלַּדִׂי יַצִח פִי כֻּל מִאיַה' קַפלֵה מִנְּהַא אתׂנַין וְעִשׁרִין קַפלֵה פֻצַׂה טַיְּיבַּה כׂאלִצַה בִּוַזן אלצאגַה אלצַנעאנִי אלמַערוּף לִאלפֻצׂה פִי מְדִינַה' צַנעַא פִי סוּק אלצֻוַוג וְכָּך אֲמַר לַנָא חַתנָא דְּנָן אַחרָיוּת כְּתוּבָּה דָא כּוּלַּהּ עִיקָר וּנדּוּניָא וּמַתַּנתָּא קַמַּייתָּא וְדָרְתָא וְתוֹסֶפתָּא עִם כָּל שְׁאָר תְּנַאיֵי כְּתוּבָּה קַבֵּילִית עֲלַאי וְעַל יָרְתאי בַּתרַאי וְעַל כָּל שְׁפַר אֲרַג נִכסִין וְקִניָינִין דְּאִית לִי תְּחוֹת כָּל שְׁמַיָּא דִּקנֵיתִי וְדַעֲתִיד אֲנָא לְמִקנֵי מִקַּרקְעֵי וּמִטַּלטְלֵי מִטַּלטְלֵי אַגַּב מְקַרקְעֵי כּוּלְּהוֹן יְהוֹן אַחרָאִין וְעַרבָּאִין לִכתוּבָּה דָּא כּוּלַּהּ עִיקָר וּנדּוּניָא וּמַתַּנתָּא קַמַּייתָּא וְדָרְתָא וְתוֹסֶפתָּא לְאִתפְּרָעָא מִנְּהוֹן בְּחַיַּאי וּבָתַר מָוֶת וְאַפִילּוּ מִגְּלִימָא דְּאַכִּתפַּאי וְקָנִינוּ מִן יוֹסֵף חַתנָא דְּנָן לכַלתָא גַזאל דָּא עַל כָּל מַאי דְּכַתִיב וּמפָרַשׁ לְעֵיל קִניָן שָׁלֵם חָמוּר גָּמוּר מֵעַכשָׁו בִּכְלִי הַכָּשֵׁר לִקנוֹת בּוֹ בְּבִיטּוּל כָּל מוּדַעֵי וּתנַאיֵי עַד סוֹפְהוֹן וּשׁטָר כְּתוּבָּה דָּא לָא כְּאַסמַכתָּא וְלָא כְּטוּפסֵי דִּשׁטַרֵי אֵלָא כְּחוֹמֶר חוֹזֶק כָּל שִׁטרֵי כְּתוּבּוֹת הַנּוֹהֲגוֹת בְּיִשׂרָאֵל וְכַהוֹגֶן וּכתִקּוּן רִזִ"לִ וְהַכֹּל שְׁרִיר וְקַיָּים. דוד ןׂ יחיא יש"ל הצעיר יחיא בן כמה"ר יוסף נע"ג English Translation[We bear witness] this day, on the Sabbath eve (Friday), corresponding to the ninth day of the month of Ševaṭ, [in] the year two-thousand and fifty-eight of the Year of Alexander, in the town wherein lies the quarter known as 'The Single's Well' (Bīr al-'Azab), [a city] situate upon her wells of flowing water, by the merit of Abraham our forefather, how that Yosef, the son of Sālim, the son of Slaymān al-Hišāš, who is called [also] by the name al-Ftayḥī, being the bridegroom, said to the virgin bride, Ghazāl, the daughter of Yosef, the son of Sālīm Ṣāliḥ, who is called [also] by the name al-Ḥaydānī, being the virgin bride, "Be my wife, in keeping with the religion of Moses and Israel, and I shall, with God's help, work, and honour, and sustain, and nourish, and support, and invest you with clothing, according to the manner of Jewish men who work, and honour, and sustain, and nourish, and support, and clothe their wives in good faith, for which I have proffered you the dower's price of your virginity, two-hundred silver denarii,[12] in which [sum] there are twenty-five denarii of pure silver coin in specie [of that kind which was formerly used in the Holy Šeqel], of which things you are most worthy, as also your sustenance, and your apparel, and your conjugal rights, that I might come upon you according to the way of the whole world." Now this bride consented [to such matters], and she has become unto him a wife. Now this largess (dowry)[13] which she brought into him [upon wedlock] is valued at one-hundred silver-[alloyed] qaflas.[14] All has been received by this bridegroom, and has come into his hand, and has become his possession, and he has incurred every-thing upon himself as it were a loan [given unto him], and a debt. That which the husband, the said bridegroom, has vouchsafed unto her as an initial gift is valued at one-hundred silver-[alloyed] qaflas,[15] and a courtyard (dwelling place) amongst those places inhabited by Jews, allowing her to go out and to come him,[16] and supplying her with all that which she might stand in need of,[17] which are but fitting unto her, from the depths of the earth [below] unto the height of heaven [above]. And he has desired, moreover, to confer upon her an additional jointure[18] subsequent to that which is prescribed of the dower's price, the value of which [jointure] is one-hundred silver-[alloyed] qaflas. All are comprised of those silver-[alloyed] qaflas mentioned above, which in every one-hundred qaflas of those calculated are twenty-two pure and unalloyed silver qaflas, based after the weight of the Ṣan‘ānī, jewelers, and which same [standard] is recognized as silver in the city of Ṣan‘ā’, in the Silversmiths' Marketplace. And thus did the said bridegroom say unto us, that "the guarantee given for this marriage contract, in its entirety [viz.], the principal,[19] and the largesse, and the initial gift, and the courtyard, and the additional jointure, with all the other conditions [written down] in the marriage contract, I have taken [them] upon myself and upon my heirs that shall come after me, and have made subject [to the conditions of this contract] the choicest of property and acquisitions acquired by me beneath the whole of heaven, whether those things which I have [already] purchased or that which I stand to purchase in the future, whether it be of estates or of chattels, or the appurtenances which lie upon lands of estate; all of them shall become the collateral and security for [payment of] this marriage contract in its entirety – the principal, and the largesse, and the initial gift, and the courtyard, and the additional jointure – for the reimbursement thereof, whether in my lifetime or after death, and even if it entails being stripped of the robe upon my shoulder." Now we have purchased from Yosef, the said bridegroom, for this bride, Ghazāl, concerning all that which is written or expressly stated above, what is considered a most complete act of purchase, having the full force and validity [of all other legal transactions], taking effect from this very moment by virtue of [his taking hold onto] a decent piece of clothing[20] with which he disavows all declarations and stipulations [that he might have made to the effect of his being compelled against his will to marry the said bride], even unto the very last statements [that were made by him].[21] Moreover, [the terms of] this marriage contract are not [misconstrued as] a mere 'assumption' [of things which are to be], neither like unto those pre-drafted forms used in [some] contracts, but rather like unto those which have the severity and force of all marriage contracts practised in Israel, as which is right, and in accordance with what was enacted by the Rabbis, of blessed memory. Now all [that which is herein written] has our assurances of being firm and established [In witness whereof we have affixed our names and seals:] David, the son of Yiḥye,[22] may his name live forever The Younger, Yiḥye the son of our honourable teacher, the Rabbi, Yosef, whose inheritance is in the Garden of Eden.[23] Bibliography textYuda Levi Nahum, Misefunoth Yehudei Teiman. Tel-Aviv 1986 Yehudah Nini (editor), al-Misawwadeh: Court ledger of Ṣan‘ā’'s Jewish community in the 18th century; Hebrew Translation by Nissim Benyamin Gamli’eli. Tel-Aviv 2001. Yosef Qāfiḥ, Halikhot Teiman. Jerusalem 1961. Ketavim. Jerusalem 1989. Amram Qoraḥ, Sa‘arat Teiman. Jerusalem 1954. Yosef Tobi, Anecdotes on the Jews of Yemen from Responsa. A Tribe and Nation, VII (1973), pp. 271-291. Shimon Tzalach (Ṣāliḥ) – editor, Tiklal ‘Eṣ Ḥayyim Hashalem. Jerusalem 1971. Shemu’el Yavne’eli, Masa‘ Teiman. Tel-Aviv 1952. |
- This is an example of a rookie mistake. Davidbena, AN/I only deals with matters of conduct, not article content. Please respond to my draft proposal above and indicate whether you would be willing to abide by a voluntary 1RR restriction for the next two weeks. Ignocrates (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- You were attempting to persuade multiple veteran editors to renounce to basic Wikipedia policies in order to accept your fringe view as valid. You have been warned multiple times that it is fringe and that you need to make verifiable edits through citing secondary sources. If you have no sources, no amount of "logic" is going to convince other editors to accept your content as valid. Wikipedia policies are mandatory for all editors. If you want to discuss Wikipedia policies the first step would be to learn them, apply them, appreciate them, understand their purpose and only then try to improve them. You cannot claim that as a Yeshiva graduate you are exempted from what is mandatory for all editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, I came to this talk forum on "Matthew's Gospel" hoping to build a consensus in support of "corrections," as I see them, being made to the main article, Gospel of Matthew. I'm sorry if I offended anybody by my behavior or comments. The truth is, I have much to learn. In fact, I do not even know what a voluntary 1RR restriction entails. (lol). Still, while you are well-versed in the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, I reiterate that certain "Prime Sources" which I have tried to promote should not be viewed as negating Wikipedia policy. And, yes, if you wish that I refrain from posting anything for 2 weeks, I can agree to that. Is that what 1RR means? When I come back, will I be free to express myself in these inner circles? Davidbena (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Davidbena, I'm sorry if I was not sufficiently clear. A 1RR editing restriction means you are limited to one reversion on a given article page within a 24 hour period. There is no reason to refrain from editing completely; otherwise, you will have no way to continue to improve your skills. The point is to improve your skills without causing conflict in the process. So, now that I have clarified what 1RR means, are you willing to abide by a voluntary 1RR restriction for the next two weeks? Ignocrates (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- A 1RR editing restriction would apply only to article pages. You are free to express your opinions on talk pages and in forums like any other editor, as long as you continue to do so in a respectful manner that is consistent with WP:Wikiquette guidelines. Ignocrates (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly, it means that I will be permitted to make only one comment per 24 hours on an "article page," for a restrictive period of two-weeks, on the condition that I abide by the rules of politeness (civility). Yes, if that is what it takes for me to learn and to become a better editor, I will agree to such strictures. Davidbena (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, not exactly. You may make as much changes to the article page as you wish. However, if another editor undoes one of your changes, you may only change it back once. If it's undone a second time, you're restricted from changing it back a 2nd time. Scenario: You add into an article about Bob that "Bob likes bananas". EditorABC comes along and changes it to "Bob likes Oranges". You 'revert' back to "Bob likes Bananas." Up to now, everyone is A-Okay. However, EditorABC comes back and, once again, changes the article to "Bob likes Oranges". If you change it back to "Bob likes Bananas" again, then you'll be blocked from editing.--v/r - TP 02:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. This self-imposed editing restriction is really quite modest compared to the sanctions often handed out here, and it applies for only a short period. However, because it applies to all articles, you will effectively be prevented from edit warring anywhere on Wikipedia during your two week training period. If you find yourself right back here in two weeks for the same reasons, I think you can anticipate a different outcome. Ignocrates (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
In summation, I assume since Davidbena said "yes" to what he thought was a restriction of one edit per article page in 24 hours, he is therefore fine with a restriction of one revert per article page in 24 hours. Is everyone ok with this suggested compromise? Going once, going twice,... Ignocrates (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, now I understand what you are saying, and I will abide by it. Davidbena (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This proposed solution does not appear to address an important issue. In the first diff cited by Tgeorgescu[45], Davidbena said "the Hebrew Bible, is an accurate historical record of events that transpired long ago." There needs to be evidence that Davidbena understands that is not a valid premise for making article content decisions in Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think David gets the idea that his editing was problematic. We don't need to beat and mold him into the perfect editor in 1 ANI thread. He's being receptive to criticism right now so let's see how Ignocrates guidance goes and leave him to it.--v/r - TP 11:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- For a Bible thumper it may be very difficult to understand that the Bible is not wholly and objectively true. But as long as he keeps his faith in the infallibility of the Bible completely separate from his Wikipedia activities, he could be a good editor. Some years ago I did not know that one has to use reliable sources in order to edit Wikipedia, but when asked to consider it, I understood this is required from everybody and I complied with this request. For me, the decision was between complying and continuing to edit and quitting in protest; I was not willing to create problems through my edits. This does not imply that I lost faith in the truth of my contributions, but I have understood that they are required to be encyclopedically verifiable. And verifiable means having reliable sources.
- Now, I did not say that theology isn't allowed on Wikipedia, what I said is that theology does not trump history and that history does not trump theology (that's the gist of WP:RNPOV: theology and history are distinct and compartmentalized, even when in dialog with each other). If he could find some theological source saying the Gospel of Mattew was written in Aramaic, he could affirm something like "Evangelicals believe as a matter of true faith that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic, while Catholics and Eastern Orthodox don't believe it that way." But I am afraid that today such view is fringe even among the Evangelicals, while in Judaism it is a non-issue. That's why he could not find sources: there is scarcely any scholar worth his salt which would put that in a book or article, i.e. in other ways than opinion hold in the past but now abandoned by scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. We all have private POVs. Hopefully, with practice, he will learn to edit from a neutral point of view and no one will be able to tell what they are. Let's give this a few more weeks and see how it goes. Ignocrates (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure 1RR on the article is the restriction most called for here, considering that Davidbena hasn't edited Gospel of Matthew since 22 August. Since then, he has been writing on the talkpage only. Of course that's a better place for it; but the current problem is surely db's bloating-up the talkpage with repetitious, overlong, multitudinous posts and his certainty that he understands wikipedia policy better than experienced editors, assuring the people who explain policy to him that it is they who "misunderstand the rules of Wikipedia".[46] There's nothing quite like such confident wikilawyering from a new editor for wearing everybody out, especially when it's coupled with calls for special consideration for being new. Davidbena, please read WP:REHASH: "
If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said.
". Some restriction regarding use of the talkpage seems to be called for here, since Davidbena has ignored sensible appeals like In ictu ocoli's "Now, please do not quote the Bible or the Talmud on this Talk page again" or "Please please please please stop posting WP:PRIMARYSOURCES". (Davidbena's response to that was "Why are you so antagonistic?") Nobody minds giving extra time to teaching newbies, but constructive, experienced editors should enjoy some protection from having their time and energy wasted on those who will not hear. I agree we can start by hoping that this ANI discussion has had a good effect, but if there's no improvement shown soon, we shouldn't wait long to institute a topic ban. In view of Davidbena's recent edit on Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews, perhaps it needs to be for more than just the Gospel of Matthew. Bishonen | talk 13:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC).
- Comment - agree with User:Bishonen, thank you for notifying me of this thread. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Idem. Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I will be more cautious now about editing existing articles, and I will seek only the prior approval of the inner-staff of editors participating in "Talk" forums for each article before I paste any modifications. I'm terribly sorry for this misunderstanding. Davidbena (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Davidbena - I'm afraid that won't be enough, we don't have "forums" - see header of Talk:Gospel of Matthew "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.", in reality is much easier to deal with edits to articles, other editors can simply undo with a click, wheras with filling Talk pages with original research (and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES) is much more timewasting for everyone. I don't think Ignocrates solution is going to work and as "If anyone is interested that I cite more proofs to this effect, I shall be happy to do so. " on Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews indicates you're already posting WP:PRIMARYSOURCES(Jerome, Papias, Eusebius are primary sources not modern scholarship) on a page Ignocrates is working hard to get to Featured Article status at the same time as Ignocrates is in his own words "trying to save your ass." And this 1828 source Missing years (Jewish calendar) which I have reverted per WP:BRD. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, In ictu oculi. The irony wasn't lost on me either. Ignocrates (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Davidbena - I'm afraid that won't be enough, we don't have "forums" - see header of Talk:Gospel of Matthew "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.", in reality is much easier to deal with edits to articles, other editors can simply undo with a click, wheras with filling Talk pages with original research (and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES) is much more timewasting for everyone. I don't think Ignocrates solution is going to work and as "If anyone is interested that I cite more proofs to this effect, I shall be happy to do so. " on Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews indicates you're already posting WP:PRIMARYSOURCES(Jerome, Papias, Eusebius are primary sources not modern scholarship) on a page Ignocrates is working hard to get to Featured Article status at the same time as Ignocrates is in his own words "trying to save your ass." And this 1828 source Missing years (Jewish calendar) which I have reverted per WP:BRD. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Bishonen, one more thing, with your permission. I would like to seek your advice concerning something I posted on the Talk forum, and whether or not I should just desist altogether from asking its implementation. I have no intention to try to press my way on others. This is what I posted on the Talk: "The editors of this article may wish to consider adding a new sub-title entitled, 'Jewish Exegeses in Jesus' Teachings,' which, by the nature of its title, requires a brief look into some of his teachings, and approached from the standpoint of Source Criticism. ... Having such a sub-topic will greatly enhance the article. In my opinion, it would not have to be long, nor cover the entire Book of Matthew. We can discuss what teaching/saying might be appropriate in this regard and show where it has been diacritically analyzed, thereby bringing to our readers a more enlightened understanding." Is such a request going too far? If so, I will drop it and concern myself with other issues on Wikipedia. By the way: I would never have suggested it if I didn't feel that the general Christian public would benefit by knowing them. Davidbena (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Davidbena, you've got the scope of Wikipedia's ambition a little wrong (erring on the side of modesty): the articles have to speak to readers of all faiths (or no faith), and to an international audience, not just to "the general Christian public". Anyway, I don't think such a section would be an encyclopedic addition, but that's just my uninformed opinion, my instinct as a long-time editor. I'm not at home with articles on religious subjects, and all the people who have posted in this thread so far are better qualified than me to answer you. Bishonen | talk 03:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC).
- Proposal for Primary Sources restriction - User:Ignocrates, User:Sean.hoyland, User:TParis, User:Nishidani, User:Bishonen, I would counter propose a 1 month restriction on Religion/History articles or Talk pages [against] introduction of any mention of any source prior to 1950, to see if Davidbena can work in the framework of WP:PSTS. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I support this new restriction in addition to the 1RR on article pages for two weeks. My examples illustrating the limited cases when primary sources may be used and how to use them were apparently not understood. Ignocrates (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Very creative idea, IIO, though you might have mentioned the OP, User:Tgeorgescu, too, as well really as anybody else who sees this thread; the issue could do with input from more uninvolved users (such as me). I support the proposed restriction (except, what's the word "introduction" doing there?). To be clear, I support it for all articles and talkpages, not just Gospel of Matthew Bishonen | talk 03:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC).
- Sorry, missed the ping. Missed out the word "[against] introduction..", fixed. See Talk:Missing years (Jewish calendar). In ictu oculi (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
There are concerns, including regarding copyright, on the editor's latest user space draft at User:Davidbena/sandbox/Yemenite Ketubba. I have pointed out these concerns at User talk:Davidbena#Copyright concerns. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Since it is my article which was published in an Israeli University book, entitled "Yossef Tobi Jubilee Volume," I am currently requesting permission from the University to publish it on Wikipedia. Davidbena (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would understand the need to do that if you have renounced to your copyright. Otherwise, if it is your own text, do with it as you please. Although it should be said that Wikipedia is not a platform for spreading particular pieces of academic research, i.e. it is not a scientific journal and not a channel for publishing one's own research. Instead, Wikipedia summarizes the arguments from academic research if they meet the scientific consensus or if there is no consensus, then it renders all notable views on a subject. Do mind that your university may have other norms for citing sources than Wikipedia has, i.e. scholars are allowed to cite primary sources (such as the Bible or the Talmud) in scientific journals, but this is not encouraged in Wikipedia. Sometimes Bible verses and other historical documents may be cited within Wikipedia, but only to the extend that such citation are not contentious or to which they serve to illustrate points made by secondary sources. In certain matters, citing Bible translations can be highly contentious, this is why scholars need to be cited for making such points instead of citing primary sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Davidbena (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I could not see my comment, so I am re-typing it. I thank you, Tgeorgescu. I am aware of the things you said to me. Since my article was published in an Israeli book (in Hebrew), with other articles written by other writers, I am asking the publisher for permission to re-publish my own article because of its vast importance in helping us understand Yemenite Jewish culture. Davidbena (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Ahn Sahng-hong and World Mission Society Church of God
Hi,
I've been tracking two pages in particular the past couple of weeks. The pages are Ahn Sahng-hong and World Mission Society Church of God. Pretty much every day without fail the user Nancyinthehouse or people who appear affiliated with her revert almost any edits made that quote third party sources critical of beliefs involving the World Mission Society Church of God. Even after experienced editors like MarkMiller stepped in tried to make some of the articles more neutral sounding, the edits were eventually reverted. This has been happening since March. If you look at the Talk section of either page what ends up happening is users like Nancyinthehouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Watts9595 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Galemw2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) revert the page to a state that has information either incorrectly cited from sources or cite almost entirely to the World Mission Society Church of God Website. It's really absurd that this is allowed to continue--right now neither page has an objective, third-party view--both are a complete mess. Numerous attempts at discussion are seen in the Talk pages but nothing ever gets settled because these users refer to the cited sources as "lies" and then revert the page.
For example, after Galemw2 was done editing one page: Diff 1 After Watts9595 was done editing the page: Diff 2 After Nancyinthehouse was done editing the page: Diff 3
Here's another diff from the WMSCOG page Diff 4.
If you look further back in the history of the page edits you see that such users have been consistently making massive edits to both pages for the past few months. Please help get this under control, it's just deteriorating the information on Wikipedia.
75.72.176.22 (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I add to the above the observations that (a) both Galemw2 and Watts9595 are accounts created within the last 3 days, Galemw2 was created 03:22, 26 August 2013 and Watts9595 was created 17:26, 27 August 2013, that (b) both accounts are single purpose accounts only editing in Ahn Sahng-hong and World Mission Society Church of God,[47][48] that (c) both accounts made deletions of sourced material from the articles within 8 minutes from account creation,[49][50] that (d) Galemw2 have made lengthy objections on both talk pages claiming certain sources are unreliable,[51][52] that (e) both Nancyinthehouse and Watts9595 have supported,[53][54][55][56] that (f) all three accounts seem to imply they speak or understand Korean, the native language of the Church,[57][58][59] while (g) Watts9595 repeatedly accuses Superfly94, Peter1007 and I for socking.[60][61]
- The blind are leading the blind there. That talk page is atrociously unclear. Now, I'm not an authority on people who claim to be Jesus (I knew one of them one time but I'm pretty sure it was the heroin doing the talking), but I smell spam when I see it, even if it's Korean, and removed a "bibliography". Are we dealing with a conflict between adherents of the New Covenant Passover Church of God and the World Mission Society Church of God? Perhaps it could be even juicier if we had apostates from all involved parties in there. Or we could ask Dougweller to dedicate yet more of his life to the project. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Diffs have been supplied, very good. Now please notify the other users as described in the large, bright orange information bar at the top of the page. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't received any notification 75.72.176.22. You must notify other users about this. Before I edited these articles, they were all written without neutrality relying on opinions, biased websites, and personal blogs that were all created to slander. So that's why I edited deleting all those UNRELIABLE SOURCES that does NOT meet the requirements of the Policy of Wikipedia. I really wanted to add secondary sources but couldn't find any RELIABLE SOURCES. Then, User Peter1007, Sam Sailor, and Superfly94 blanks the whole page without discussing in the TALK PAGE, using Unreliable Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ahn_Sahng-hong#References_that_are_all_UNRELIABLE_SOURCES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God#References_that_are_all_UNRELIABLE_SOURCES mentioned by Galemw2. Watts9595 and I agreed to this, and yet Peter1007, Sam Sailor, Superfly94 did NOT reply to these problematic unreliable sources. They just reverted to their previous edits using these Unreliable Sources. You cannot say that a religion is "CULT" or "HERETIC" in Wikipedia. Basically every edit that they have made defines the religion "CULT" or "HERETIC." Please be neutral. Thanks. Nancyinthehouse (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nancy, you were the one editor who actually was notified, here. It looks like it was put on your talk page out of sequence, which may be why you did not notice it.
- On a different topic, you may wish to familiarize yourself with WP:RS. If you "couldn't find any RELIABLE SOURCES" then one option is to add citation needed tags so that other editors may be alerted and try to find sources. Reliable sources are absolutely required and if they can't be found it may be that the article needs to be reduced to a stub.
- On a third topic, I notice that you did not create your talk page initially, but it was created by Peter1007 [62] with the following text: "I'm going to assume that you are a member of the WMSCOG. Please correct me if I'm wrong. We are trying to create a complete article about the World Mission Society Church of God, Ahn Sahnghong and Chang Gil Jah." This raises a question of conflict of interest. Wikipedia encourages extreme caution when editing a subject that you are close to, please see WP:COI. JanetteDoe (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's very frustrating to edit these pages, for a while I almost gave up. If you make any changes that is are n/ot from their official site, they would revert the change. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the information is not always at an organization's page, otherwise there would be no point on having Wikipedia. I'm not a member of the WMSCOG but I've been researching a lot about them and everybody I ask, they tell me that even through the way they write and defend it, Nancyinthehouse, Galemw2 and Watts9595 sound like WMSCOG members. It wouldn't be surprising if their IPs are also from South Korea. I haven't seen anybody writing in the Wikipedia article that the WMSCOG is a "cult" or that they are "heretic". I think they are only trying to act like the victims. I invite any admin to see if "every edit that they have made defines the religion "CULT" or "HERETIC". Right now the World Mission Society Church of God is just pretty much the WMSCOG website in Wikipedia. Nancyinthehouse, if you want to discuss further with me you can go to my talk page, don't want to take the space of the admins. --Peter1007 (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't received any notification 75.72.176.22. You must notify other users about this. Before I edited these articles, they were all written without neutrality relying on opinions, biased websites, and personal blogs that were all created to slander. So that's why I edited deleting all those UNRELIABLE SOURCES that does NOT meet the requirements of the Policy of Wikipedia. I really wanted to add secondary sources but couldn't find any RELIABLE SOURCES. Then, User Peter1007, Sam Sailor, and Superfly94 blanks the whole page without discussing in the TALK PAGE, using Unreliable Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ahn_Sahng-hong#References_that_are_all_UNRELIABLE_SOURCES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God#References_that_are_all_UNRELIABLE_SOURCES mentioned by Galemw2. Watts9595 and I agreed to this, and yet Peter1007, Sam Sailor, Superfly94 did NOT reply to these problematic unreliable sources. They just reverted to their previous edits using these Unreliable Sources. You cannot say that a religion is "CULT" or "HERETIC" in Wikipedia. Basically every edit that they have made defines the religion "CULT" or "HERETIC." Please be neutral. Thanks. Nancyinthehouse (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- When mentioning another editor in a post on a page they do not necessarily follow closely, as you e.g. did here [63], it can be a good idea to "ping" them using
{{U}}
. Commenting directly on another user's editorial behavior, e.g. when you imply on your own talk page [64] that my editing is unspecified WP:NNPOV, my behavior WP:OWN, and outright accuse me for derogatively "considering other religions as "cults"." (all without providing any reasons for your concern, but your reply is expected in the appropriate thread), a{{TB}}
on my talk page could have initiated a dialogue towards resolving any such problems. You now [65] continue here and state that I have blanked "the whole page." Please provide a diff supporting this statement so an admin may correct my mistake. Sam 🎤 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- When mentioning another editor in a post on a page they do not necessarily follow closely, as you e.g. did here [63], it can be a good idea to "ping" them using
- JanetteDoe, I have mentioned in the talkpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ahn_Sahng-hong#Dispute long ago. I'm not a member of WMSCOG, as I have told Peter1007 to begin with. Peter1007 you are acting like a victim as IF you own the articles of the religious movement, the founder. You said you have nothing to do with WMSCOG and the messiah claiming person, and you are digging in sources that reject the requirements of the Policy of Wikipedia. You are using unreliable sources and you never reply (or cannot reply) to the explanation made in the talkpage. The sources are false fliers, book that was found guilty to be used or published, and biased websites that only considers other religions cults. NO I'm NOT a member of the WMSCOG or related to it. Stop defining other's identity with your own imagination Peter1007. I don't know why you are so EAGER to make these articles with unreliable sources. It just seems that you personally hate this religious movement or messiah claiming person. It was 75.72.176.22 who first wrote on this noticeboard and Not me. That's why I came.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have been sitting back and avoiding any major edits on these two pages, except for reverting the recent blanking, because I've had my hand slapped a couple of times so am content for now to hit up the talk pages to work things out there. I have asked Nancyinthehouse several times to provide specific examples of what sites she considers are unreliable so that we can address each one, but she is adamant that any reference she has not provided is unreliable and that anyone using any other reference is trying to slander the WMSCOG
- JanetteDoe, I have mentioned in the talkpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ahn_Sahng-hong#Dispute long ago. I'm not a member of WMSCOG, as I have told Peter1007 to begin with. Peter1007 you are acting like a victim as IF you own the articles of the religious movement, the founder. You said you have nothing to do with WMSCOG and the messiah claiming person, and you are digging in sources that reject the requirements of the Policy of Wikipedia. You are using unreliable sources and you never reply (or cannot reply) to the explanation made in the talkpage. The sources are false fliers, book that was found guilty to be used or published, and biased websites that only considers other religions cults. NO I'm NOT a member of the WMSCOG or related to it. Stop defining other's identity with your own imagination Peter1007. I don't know why you are so EAGER to make these articles with unreliable sources. It just seems that you personally hate this religious movement or messiah claiming person. It was 75.72.176.22 who first wrote on this noticeboard and Not me. That's why I came.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have a strong suspicion that Watts9595 is in fact Sticks830, as is evidenced by the following retort #. You'll notice that this entry was done by 75.67.112.116 but signed by Sticks830. 75.67.112.116 also seems to be playing along in the blanking #
- The only editor who seems to be willing to address each item separately is Galemw2 at both talk pages here and here. I have been trying to answer things piecemeal but there is a lot there. Unfortunately I don't seem to be working fast enough for Nancyinthehouse here. Superfly94 (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- You'll all have to sort out these two articles on their talk pages as I've fully protected them. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Disruption by User:Wer900
I'm getting really tired of being insulted and defamed by this user. Every time he has a problem with anything he finds some cheap excuse to drag my name into it. Here's just the latest example [66]. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- And here's another thread [67] from a week or two ago where he again dragged my name into a discussion that I had nothing whatsoever to do with. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) also see diff and diff of disruptive editing. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- And here's a link to another edit I just found because it was revdeleted, (so, admins only, sorry) in which he tries to drag me into a discussion of a recent arbcom ruling that again, I had absolutely nothing to do with. He has also been involved in a thread on "that other website" where they have been badmouthing me on andf off for about six months. "Harrassment" would be the word i would use for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) also see diff and diff of disruptive editing. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- For a long while, Wer900 has spent a disproportionate amount of their time on wikipedia casting aspersions on other editors. Away from their content edits on astronomy and the possibility of extraterrestial life, their project space contributions have been problematic. I first became aware of Wer900 when the wikipedia notification process picked up a series of disruptive edits they had made on behalf of an arbcom banned user on User talk:Viriditas.[68][69][70] Wer900 asserted that I had "taken ownership of Poland-related articles." That wholly false assertion—inaccurate enough to be called "stupid"— resulted in an ANI report just three months ago. Wer900's conduct during the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case gave further examples of that kind of editing, directed at other targets. Several of their contributions during the case were removed by arbitrators/clerks and they came close to being blocked. The current report concerns recent malicious and unjustified comments on Resolute. These disruptive personal attacks on others, delivered with great self-assurance and no self-doubt, happen too often. Mathsci (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- ROFL! Well, if it means anything Beeblebrox, I am honoured to be held in as low esteem by Wer900 as he does you. Tells me right away that I must be doing something right. Wer900 is pretty much WP:NOTHERE at this point and he's pretty much cruising to go down the same road KW did. Resolute 02:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- And, the icing on the cake, that he is basically trolling Jimbo now as well. "Personal attacks or harrassment" ... where have I seen those words grouped together... some list of things... oh yes, it was standard reasons in the drop down menu for blocking a user. I don't think we need an arbitiration case here, this case is uncomplicated, and WP:HARRASS or WP:NOTHERE or WP:BATTLE would all do nicely as block rationales. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome to the club Beeblebrox. After I got an editor waging a vendetta kicked off the BLP of his target, he has followed me around WP for years using an alternate bad hand account to make disparaging comments about me on noticeboards, my talk page, and administrative forums. No one has done anything about it even though he hasn't been hiding what he is doing. It seems you administrator types only complain when it happens to you. When it happens to us non-admin schmucks, you could care less. Cla68 (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. I was impressed by all the diffs, so I loaded them all into tabs and read them. The baloney is being sliced reaaal thin, so thin you could read a newspaper through it. Synopsis of diffs: using diffs of edits to the same paragraph, which turns one incident into three, using a diff where Beeblebrox insulted Wer900 first, using a diff from May (!), and using multiple diffs from the same discussion. All of these from editor talk pages, where discussion is supposed to be vigorous. No disruption to the job of building an encyclopedia. Pah. You made me look and it was stale cheese. →StaniStani 05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Edits making personal attacks on Resolute on a very public wikipedia page precipitated this report. As usual at ANI, if there is a wider picture, other users will comment. Stanistani's comments are not even vaguely helpful. That could be because he is editing on behalf of a site-banned editor.[71] Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- As for the diffs I presented myself, they show a pattern of Wer mentioning my name in a series of discussions over the last several months. Not one of those discussions actually had anything to do with me, Wer just mentions me each time as an example of a horrible, corrupt admin. I defy anyone to say that's ok and we should just let users act like that. It's inexcusable and indefensible. We have dispute resolution processes for a reason. If he, or anyone else, wants to have a conversation about how horrible I am they are free to turn this link blue and we can have that discussion instead of just sniping at me from afar. If i am really so horrible, surely others will line up to endorse the validity of his concerns and whatever evidence he has of wrongdoing on my part. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, I have no real complaint about Wer900's comments directed at me, other than to note my amusement at how he and his cohorts dish it out a hell of a lot better than they take it. But it is often true that those most willing to criticize/attack are least willing to accept criticism in return. Wer900 themselves has been in full conspiracy theory mode for some time now, and I take their commentary within that context. Which is to say, I was not aware that working away in the glamourous world of hockey player articles was "the right cabal". Resolute 14:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really care about them much as individual remarks either and i doubt anyone gives Wer's conspiracy ranting about cabals much credence, but, what bothers me is the pattern of repeatedly bringing up my name in discussions that have noting whatsoever to do with me, as his go-to example of a terrible person and abusive admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Mathsci: I edit here, at this moment, on behalf of myself. I noticed Occam's post, but do not advocate on his behalf, any more than my response to him in other topics is on your behalf, you being a banned user there. Don't create bogus diffs. People might click on them. →StaniStani 19:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- As far as bans go, my understanding is that Occam, who approached Wer900 on wikipediocracy in late May to start an RfAr about me, has not been successful in having his arbcom site-ban lifted. Stanistani is ignoring any problems with Wer900's edits. But in that case, why comment at all? Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Mathsci: I edit here, at this moment, on behalf of myself. I noticed Occam's post, but do not advocate on his behalf, any more than my response to him in other topics is on your behalf, you being a banned user there. Don't create bogus diffs. People might click on them. →StaniStani 19:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really care about them much as individual remarks either and i doubt anyone gives Wer's conspiracy ranting about cabals much credence, but, what bothers me is the pattern of repeatedly bringing up my name in discussions that have noting whatsoever to do with me, as his go-to example of a terrible person and abusive admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Edits making personal attacks on Resolute on a very public wikipedia page precipitated this report. As usual at ANI, if there is a wider picture, other users will comment. Stanistani's comments are not even vaguely helpful. That could be because he is editing on behalf of a site-banned editor.[71] Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. I was impressed by all the diffs, so I loaded them all into tabs and read them. The baloney is being sliced reaaal thin, so thin you could read a newspaper through it. Synopsis of diffs: using diffs of edits to the same paragraph, which turns one incident into three, using a diff where Beeblebrox insulted Wer900 first, using a diff from May (!), and using multiple diffs from the same discussion. All of these from editor talk pages, where discussion is supposed to be vigorous. No disruption to the job of building an encyclopedia. Pah. You made me look and it was stale cheese. →StaniStani 05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome to the club Beeblebrox. After I got an editor waging a vendetta kicked off the BLP of his target, he has followed me around WP for years using an alternate bad hand account to make disparaging comments about me on noticeboards, my talk page, and administrative forums. No one has done anything about it even though he hasn't been hiding what he is doing. It seems you administrator types only complain when it happens to you. When it happens to us non-admin schmucks, you could care less. Cla68 (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- And, the icing on the cake, that he is basically trolling Jimbo now as well. "Personal attacks or harrassment" ... where have I seen those words grouped together... some list of things... oh yes, it was standard reasons in the drop down menu for blocking a user. I don't think we need an arbitiration case here, this case is uncomplicated, and WP:HARRASS or WP:NOTHERE or WP:BATTLE would all do nicely as block rationales. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
In fact, quite recently, Wer900 made edits right here at ANI that were quite similar to those cited by Mathsci. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive809#A new accusation, he announced that he and the currently-blocked Viriditas had determined the real-life identity of another editor, and it was oh so very bad. At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Genetically Modified Food Controversies, it all turned out to be a lot of garbage. But I do note that Wer900 did apologize subsequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize unreservedly to jytdog for that incident. However, I have evidence on others, which I believe (in my best judgment, after the jytdog incident) to be unshakeably sound, including one self-identification. I digress, though; Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), you have gone beyond the pale with this. You have been hounding me for the better part of a year now, I think, if not more, and are slowly inching towards the proverbial topic-ban button for me (I think you know what I'm talking about, I don't want to bring it up here). You are following the classic AN/I-dweller's technique—posting a large number of "teh diffz" in order to "conclusively demonstrate" that I am a "disruptive" individual, all the while ignoring the context of one of my statements.
Sure, my changing of the hatnote on Jimbo's page was "disruptive". But wasn't Jimmy Wales's systematic (WARNING: SITE IZ TEH BAD) hatting and deletion of critical comments even more so, especially given that Jimbo seems to "hold court" on his talk page? Moreover, aunva6 (talk · contribs) deleted my statement against Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which was not "disruptive", merely critical. Why was that done? If no coherent answer can be given, then I ask that that particular comment be restored to its rightful place.
I see more at work here, Beeblebrox. You are attempting to divert attention from Wikipedia's failings and channel it into cultic worship of yourself, your friends, and Jimmy Wales. If you want to take this to ArbCom for a show trial, then you will prove that that committee is nothing but the high priesthood of Wikipedia, performing sacrifice of critics and sending them to the Wikipediocracy netherworld.. Wer900 • talk 04:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I was tempted to reply to this, until I realized that Wer900's unadorned words were more damning to his reputation that anything I could possibly say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- User:Wer900 has to be joking if he's hoping for this to be taken to Arbcom. There's enough here for an indefinite block without any further ado.WP:NOTHERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I obviously agree, but in the interest of giving Wer one more chance to actually explain themselves instead of just spoutiong conspiracy theories, I wonder if he would care to comment on why he brought up my name twice in discussions of the Keifer Wolfowotz/Ironholds arbcom case and once in a discussion on Jimbo's talk page about the child protection policy? What connection is there between myself and either of those discussions? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Anti -religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits
I regret feeling the need to come here re a user,Greengrounds, who has in the last couple of days, turned his attention to various articles on Jesus and has made it quite clear in numerous talk page postings that he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to fight for the truth. He started off by altering the lead of Historicity of Jesus, [72], and when this was reverted he reverted it straight back again with no discussion. He has appeared on the talkpage of the user who did that asking him if he does not realise that the source for information about Jesus, the Bible, says "he flew in the air like a zombie spaghetti monster" [73]. He removed a whole properly sourced section of the article "Historicity of Jesus" because he didn't like the subject header, with no discussion on the talk page [74]. He changed the opening sentence of the second paragraph of the lead of Historicity of Jesus, a sentence that has been arrived at after years of discussion from "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" to "Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend", [75],ignoring an edit notice requesting that changes not be made to the lead without discussion on the talkpage and consensus achieved first. He insists on inserting a tendentious and ungrammatical section at the beginning of the article - Ehrman lays out a the framework that historians can only establish what probably,and that miracles by their very nature are the least likely explanation for what happened [76] explaining that miracles cannot happen when the article does not discuss miracles. Just in the last few minutes, he reverted another article Christ Myth Theory,to a version from some time ago, with the edit summary "reverted to older version before apologists erased the whole article. It is for showing the theories, not for showing mainstream scholarly opinion" [77] undoing the entire, painstaking, excellent revision of the article undertaken only a few days ago by User PiCo and has slapped neutrality tags all over both articles. There is much, much more, I will supply further diffs if requested, this is only a little taste of his activities altering articles over the last two days. On talk pages, he has repeatedly made it clear that he is on a mission to proclaim the truth that the Bible states that Jesus was a "flying space zombie" [78], an expression he is very fond of and uses over and over, and accuses any one who challenges him about anything of being a Christian apologist [79]. Once again, this is a mere sampling of his talk page activities and he has made it quite clear that he is only just beginning [80] [81]. I have tried to staunch the flow of his frenzied tendentious editing of these articles to some extent but have not got the time or energy to keep doing it, something needs to be done to put at least a temporary halt, or slowing down, of this, it is turning these articles into disaster areas. I am not necessarily requesting blocks or bans right now, I would at least like an admin to explain WP policies and guidelines to him (I assume it is a him) and I feel we need to undo the damage he has done to these articles and prevent any more.Smeat75 (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- The wiki on the christ myth theory was decimated by Pico, a move he did right befre he ritired that user name. sMeat has undone my previous edits on that article where I restored some of the 60,000 letters pico erased without discussion. So I restored to an edit from before retired user Pico erased most of the article. The material removed by pico and smeat (by way of her own reversions) was well referenced and remvoed without discussion or good reason.
- The lead on wiki on the historicity of jesus was not changed in a way that changed the citation, but was a citation from the same author which presents the undisputable fact (amongst scholarly historians) that jesus life is infact enshrouded by myth. No historian beleives the resurrection actually took place, and that is why it was worth mentioning. To my own credit I have made some bad edits that have been reverted with good reason, and those I left alone. But please while your looking at my edits, please look at Smeat's edits as well. Since her own style of bullying and POV pushing is quite evident in her lack of gathering consensus or using the talk page, and right down to this very article she brought up here. She is not getting her way, and she's mad. That's all this is. Please see the talk page on Historicity of Jesus you will see how I have been engaging and discussing with other users, some of them agree with me, and there has already been posts on that page pertaining to the POV. I discussed the NPOV tags before I put them in. See this post on the talk page: Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Obnoxiously_point_of_view. Smeat had many opportunity to object, and as you can see, I am not the one who started the discussion, nor am I the only one who has an issue with the article as is. Also, this user Smeat seems out to get me. She has already started grievances with other senior editors. Seems more like the behavour of someone who is mad because there are people on Wikipedia who have different evidence to present than what she is used to seeing. But every edit I have made has been from scholarly peer reviewed sources, sources already being used and accepted by smeat with no problem... that is, until she doesn't like what they have to say. Other than the one edit on Tacitus, which smeat was actually right about, and I backed off on that one. As you can see, I am not being unreasonable, it is just a case where one user is being a squeaky wheel trying to save face and get her way. --Greengrounds (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- For the further information of administrators, Editor Greengrounds entered similar conflicts with longstanding editors in relation to Religious views of Adolf Hitler and to a lesser extent Catholic Church and Nazi Germany a few months ago, leading to this request for comment by User:Hcc01. Ozhistory (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think Greengrounds is actually an anti-religious POV pusher. I think he is merely trying to counter what he perceives as bias, not trying to impose his own view on others. And though he makes some good points, he is making them badly and ignoring normal Wikipedia procedures and guidelines. That does qualify his edits as disruptive and it needs to stop. I think a warning and an offer of coaching would be appropriate. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- GG said, I thought that was common knowledge. Well it is, but not amongst Wikipedia's christian apologetics community. I'd say that rather than being anti-religious, he would seem to be more anti-Christian. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- These are preposterous accusations to make against Smeat75. We need as a community to find a better way to deal with these kinds of situations before they become cesspools that drain time and energy. Greengrounds may or may not have the capacity to contribute constructively, but the first step would be to willingly stop crusading and proceed with more encyclopedic detachment. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Cynwolfe. Some of Greengrounds edits are proper, correct, and needed. I've personnally seen many edits (and he and I seem to follow the same Christian Wiki pages) that I agreed with a thought "now why didn't I see that..."
- That being said, his actions and words all speak to having a huge axe to grind against some editors (I specifically remember him calling out PiCo as a problem which I thought was laughable considering I always saw him as a middle of the road voice for reason) and against Christianity in general. He does this by sometimes wholesale changes and then challenges all desenters as "Christian Apologists". At the very least he needs to tone down his clear bias & non-NPOV against Christianity and instead focus on gaining concensus for his revisions. Because right now there is NONE - he comes in, ticks everyone off, and then claims to be the injured party on Talk. You don't get anything done that way. Another point is that Smeat75 only captured a few of the pages this is simultaneously happening on - there are others with Miracles of Jesus & Tacitus on Christ being just two of them. Ckruschke (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
- His conduct certainly indicates some serious problems being able to contribute in a non-disruptive way. I'm not sure I would necessarily support an edit restriction yet, neither am I sure I would oppose it. But at the very least I believe an extremely strong warning is called for. The recent, rather ridiculous, claims against PiCo, one of the few editors I personally trust to deal with contentious material regarding Christianity, speaks volumes to me about Greengrounds' possible very problematic views, and his ability to conduct himself in accord with policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- A fairly unimportant point about the thread title - there was already a thread "Religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits" so rather than trying to think up a section header I just put "Anti-" in front of that one.I don't know if he is really anti-religious, I do know that he is not editing from a neutral point of view and is causing disruption, and as Ckruschke says, to more articles than I mentioned in my first post here, I did not want to produce a wall of text.17:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I had already warned him once and the second time told him to read the ANI notice about User:Davidbena, saying that if he does not take heed from it I will begin an ANI notice as "Atheistic POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits". User:Greengrounds and User:Davidbena are mirror images of each other, one thinks that the Bible is totally worthless and the other thinks the Bible is infallible and they both push such POVs. User:Davidbena said he understood that his behavior was problematic, and I hope he tries to better his ways. If we get User:Greengrounds to admit that much, it would be a progress. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I am asking for advice regarding what appears to be a disruptive pattern of editing which involves drive-by tagging and removal of citations from tens of articles in the past week (~250 edits in the past week alone, see [last 250 edits].
The common denominator to these edits were initially citations from articles published on gatestoneinstitute.org. user:Visite_fortuitement_prolongée initially removed several such quotations as copyvio (see diff and diff). Another editor reworded the quotes (diff) to avoid any such possible violation however the quotes were then removed by user:Visite_fortuitement_prolongée who tagged them as unreliable source (diff). At the same time
User:Visite_fortuitement_prolongée started applying the unreliable source tag to tens of different quotes from Gatestone articles on a variety of wikipedia topics, deleting many of these citations altogether. His edits are very rapid, moving from one topic to another at times at less than 1 minute intervals. For instance in 30 minutes (on August 27,2013 starting at 20:00[diff] till 20:29 [diff] ) I counted edits in nearly 40 separate articles (is this even humanly possible without a script or a bot?). Among those later edits citations from another source(europenews.dk) in multiple separate topics were also deleted.
He doesn't discuss most of those changes in the articles' respective talk pages. I mentioned in his user's talk page several days ago that each citation has to be reviewed separately since "Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y"; I also mentioned that "sources needn't necessarily be neutral, unbiased, or objective" to which he answered "indeed" (User talk:Visite fortuitement prolongée#Gatestone_Institute) and continued nonetheless with the same behavior.
I ask for guidance on how to approach this as the editor basically ignored my 3 entries on his talk page in the past week and these edits are ballooning at an unmanageable pace. N1of2 (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- EDIT: I crossed out a paragraph above to avoid sidetracking from the main issue and made a new entry (below) to express myself more clearly since the problem seems to have been misunderstood. There are hundreds of independent authors that publish on Gatestone Institute's website. N1of2 (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- VFP is correct about the source not being reliable. If you want to retain the content, you should find a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- My understanding is that one cannot make a blanket assumption that a source is unreliable for all statements; each statement needs to be evaluated on its own merits. In this case many different authors /articles cited in multiple different wikipedia articles were mass tagged and deleted without individual consideration. N1of2 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are there places where a
VFPGatestone source was being used to support statements about itself or its members? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)- Do you mean Gatestone Institute source? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Roscelese, please see my added paragraph below with clarifications. There are hundreds of authors listed as having published on Gatestone Institute's website and most don't appear to be members of the institute. N1of2 (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are there places where a
- My understanding is that one cannot make a blanket assumption that a source is unreliable for all statements; each statement needs to be evaluated on its own merits. In this case many different authors /articles cited in multiple different wikipedia articles were mass tagged and deleted without individual consideration. N1of2 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is an error above, in "user:Visite_fortuitement_prolongée initially removed several such quotations as copyvio [and later] tagged them as unreliable source". This month I always tagged as unreliable (for example 569455895 and 569456468) before deleting as copyvio (for example 569456507 and 569456861). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please also notice that I did not deleted when needed as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (see for example Israeli targeted killings or Civilian casualty ratio) and when needed as biography (see for example Tuvia Tenenbom or Richard Miniter). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Let me restate or reemphasize the problem. There are hundreds of authors listed as contributors on the Gatestone Institute's website, some well known, some less so.[Author list]. Does anyone mean to say that ALL their Gatestone articles are automatically deemed an unreliable source for any wikipedia statement and that these articles are basically banned from being cited as source on wikipedia? According to WP:RS "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." It seems absurd to mass tag and mass delete tens of different articles by different authors as unreliable source without judging individually whether EACH is reliable for the statement being made! I just do not comprehend this mass automated deletion without any discussion in the relevant topic's talk page. These topics encompass tens of different wikipidia articles and hundreds of different statements and I do not see how this wonton mass deletion in a matter of minutes without due consideration could possibly be allowed. N1of2 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, yes, they're unreliable on their face. Maybe you could make a case for an individual article or two being reliable if the author is some sort of super expert in the real world, but generally, if what they're saying is true and important, why can't they get it published in a real source instead of on the website of some fearmongering think tank? This is really not an ANI issue, VFP's actions are neutral at worst but probably a positive contribution. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
disruptive editing at WP:COI
as much as i feel like i generally agree with hir, Cantaloupe2 is, i feel, disruptively editing the CoI policy page. moving around to different sections, but unwilling, despite my attempts to engage on either page or user talk, to come to consensus before making substantial edits that affect the entire WP environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UseTheCommandLine (talk • contribs)
- response I asked for explanation and discussion, but I have not been given any explanation beyond that you feel that you disagree. I have explained the edits quite thoroughly. I would like each objections hashed out, item by item, but so far you have not done so and you brought the issue here. What would you think is an amicable resolution here?
- I have provided a thoroughly explanation in the TALK page discussion. I provided you with Wikipedia's definition of consensus and some citations that clarifies my premise. I'm unclear as to what exactly it is you find objectionable and your response seems to rather philosophical and ambiguous. The definition of consensus came from Wikipedia's cosensus policy page. In response to your statement "Look, while not a core policy, this is a significant and substantial one. " , I asked why it is significant and substantial, but no response was provided.
- Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- immediately after responding here, this editor went to my most recently edited article and was rather hasty in removing ELs, removing at least one RS. But i'm hoping most admins are the sort to immediately look into commenters' editing history, making this comment unnecessary. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- The external links we add here must adhere to WP:EL. The San Francisco Chronicle you claim to have been removed was dead and it was replaced with a new URL that is alive. Please stay on topic. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- the EL in question, from this revision of the page, works just fine for me, thanks. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Please reference edit. The San Francisco Chronicle is a good source. The pre-existing link, however was found to be stale as-found. I therefore, located the currently live URL and replaced it in source, then I removed it from the external link seciton per WP:ELRC but you accused me of removing a reliable source and re-inserted the old dead URL in an incorrect format hindering improvement effort. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This user has also been rather disruptive on WinCo Foods. While (s)he is in the right to bring up bias issues, they appear to be misusing the WP:COI template because they suspect, with minimal(1) evidence(2), that the anonymous editors are affiliated with the company. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- For context, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cantaloupe2 from January 2013, with some similar concerns about editing process and application of the COI guideline. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- That seems pretty significant. Given what I've seen (and acknowledging that i might be biased, i did fly off the handle there a bit in an edit summary or two) I think this is a situation in immediate need of both a short term solution by administrators, and a long term solution up to and including arbitration. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 20:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Yet more context, not related to this particular incident at WP:COI but related to this particular editor: On another article in recent weeks, I have observed and been subject to disruptive editing by Cantaloupe2. Since not explicitly a part of this discussion, I'll hold the topic out of this thread for now, but would be happy to document if asked by an administrator to do so. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- This user has continued their pattern of hostile editing and repeated changes to the WP:COI page without consensus. I have taken it to AN3 for now. Given the number of other editors who've chimed in about how this editor's behavior is clearly problematic, though, I still believe it will require more significant/sustained administrator attention than AN3. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- request for response Please followup to the response I provided on the matter of the issue you raised. Thank you, Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Break/Proposal
In light of the additional information presented, I would like to make the following suggestions.
Proposal: Editing restrictions such as WP:1RR or WP:0RR for a limited duration (1 month?). I think some kind of civility restriction or warning may also be warranted* see addendum below given that this user has demonstrated a propensity for retaliatory behavior, which Drmies described in in this user's RfC/U from earlier this year as a "tit-for-tat, borderline personal-attack style of communication"
I make this suggestion also acknowledging that this user has made a number of what i would consider good edits, and in the hope that slowing things down, they would be able to become a more productive and collaborative contributor over time.
* addendum: as I acknowledged earlier in the thread, i flew off the handle in one of my edit summaries, for which I apologize unreservedly.
-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
User posting copyvio, removing AfD headers, etc
Special:Contributions/Boss02 does not seem to understand that one can not remove AfD headers. Also he's removing CSD tags for copyright violations, and his files he's uploaded are all currently marked as PUF. Seems he just doesn't understand how to follow Wiki rules. Caffeyw (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Also it appears the account started it's first edit on Aug 8. I'm suspecting user IP 180.149.0.249 is also the same user. They're editing in the same fashion, removing AfD flags, and seem to be interested in the same articles, resulting in the same type of reverts to their changes. Caffeyw (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've deleted one article as a duplicate and closed that AfD in favor of the older article/AfD. I haven't the time now to look at the other stuff, but I think there's some action necessary. —SpacemanSpiff 10:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree the editor is not the most clueful, however I only find removals of PROD tags, which are explicitly permitted (tag removal is exactly how you contest a PROD). Just for the record, can you link the edits where he removed AfD tags? --cyclopiaspeak! 10:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Since Spaceman deleted the articles I can no longer pull up the information. Caffeyw (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Paglu_3_%282014_film%29&action=history will show where the IP has done it not once, but twice removing the AfD flag. An article of course created by Boss02. After doing a little looking at the fact that IPs all in the same close range seem to be doing the same things I'm came across this Sockpuppet_investigations/Niloy229/Archive The naming convention and IP seems to also go along with those listed. Add to the fact they're all interested in the same type of articles "Tollywood" films it seems like this is just an additional sock. Caffeyw (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Since Spaceman deleted the articles I can no longer pull up the information. Caffeyw (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just to note that I've cleaned up the copyright issue at Khoka 420. I don't know if it's relevant, but a Niloy229 sock flagged it for copyvio deletion on 4 August, and it was deleted accordingly (unfortunately, in error, since the blog it was supposedly copied from postdates the content). But that doesn't mean the Niloy229 sock didn't want the article, as he had been busily trying a copy-paste move to Khoka 420 (2012 film). If this were certainly a new contributor, I would drop him a friendly notice about what he can and can't do - both in regards to copying content from other sources (as he copied the plot here) and in regards to removing maintenance tags - and proceed accordingly if he continues, but if there is reason to believe this is a sock I would leave that to others. I think it's very plausible. The sock taking action at Khoka 420 (2012 film) and Khoka 420 was User:Don02. I find the history of this article significant - almost significant enough for me to block immediately, but I'll leave that to people with more experience in SPI and, perhaps, time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am very much worried about this user. He is working about Bengali Film related article. ( which I do too!). But he is ignoring all wiki policies. His another article Best Movies Of Tollywood , which is totally OR. He may be sock of user:Niloy229 - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 11:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I've NAC'd the duplicate AFD for Paglu 3 (2014 film) in favour of the original one which had more participants. I've also replaced the AFD tags at that article with the ones relating to the original AFD which remains open (though heading for a WP:SNOW deletion). Stalwart111 11:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- With a few more minutes of review, I'm seeing enough quacking for me - new account created several days after the block of the last, immediately picks up the actions. Indeffed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Template:INDO These are regular issues, see this and there are reports in almost every noticeboard. Like others, I also think there are many socks involved here. --Tito☸Dutta 13:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Prizren article fighting
Hi there, I just want to point out that the article Prizren is in danger. I have spent a lot of time on the past on this article, and there are a few pro serbian radicals who continue to make this article pro serb and removal all other information. I spent a lot of time to collect rare media User_talk:Mdupont#Orphaned_non-free_media_.28File:Prizren_14_May_1934_GermanyLang.ogv.29 that is being removed among other things, I dont have the time to fight this any more, but I do want to ask someone who does to review this. I would suggest to put some type of stop to the heated fighting on this article and put someone neutral in charge of monitoring edits. thanks mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am the one who removed the files due to excessive non-free files of a town. Werieth (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
User:autovandalbot is malfunctioning and turned rogue against its creator
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
help my vandal bot went rouge and is now trying to block other bots
please help me fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehautobot (talk • contribs) 13:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to have gotten the username wrong - the rogue account is User:Tehautobot, which has already been indeffed for a particularly stupid bit of shenanigans. Autovandalbot isn't a real user, so I deleted that bit of vandalism as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
User Mckhan issuing unwanted warnings
Hi this user Mckhan doesnt agree on the sources that i supply to him on his talk page but instead issues me with warnings. On articles like "Rohail Hyatt" he has reverted my edits and has added no sources to that. While i have given him sources, also on article "Shahid Masood" he was not able to provide me with sources but instead just kept issuing warnings to me.His past record clearly indicates he just wants to add information he feels right. If you can look upon the reverts of these articles i hope you will find the answer and if you also have a look at his contributions mostly are in the form of edit wars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Honestly, I have yet to see a "wanted" warning - that's why they're warnings. But on the face of it, this seems very much like a content dispute escalating into disruption. It would be helpful if you and User:McKahn would back away from each other and the topic for a bit, let tempers cool down. Then maybe a proper discussion could continue. I see allegations of racial and ethnic bias floating around your talk pages, and that's bothersome - some cooling down time might not be out of order. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Guess what, M.H. again!
I have added information to the SPI on this user, which they keep deleting. [85] [86] Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me to me (as per my comments on the SPI), but I also believe it to be a violation of WP:TPO, and interference with administrative processes. (User was just warned in yesterday's ANI about refactoring and deleting other's comments)Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, as I saif to Hijiri 88 yesterday, and per my general comments in the original AN/I, you need to disengage from each other. The dispute had died down and was happily waiting for SPI clerk notice - had that shown no connection then it might have been appropriate to raise the images issue in a non-confrontational way. As it is you've just re-ignited the drama for no really good reason. As with Hijiri 88; you need to unwatch those pages and walk away. --Errant (chat!) 17:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- If we have access to the evidence now, why not add that evidence to the SPI now? It may eliminate the need for CU, which is supposed to be a last resort? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Gaijin42 Please get off my back. I have just contacted Wikipedia emergency email about the mocking way you have placed my photos. You should never so such things! This is the 2nd time you do that (the first time was publishing my blog screenshot which you unlawfully uploaded falsely claiming it's your own work. I spent the day helping another editor and am now wasting 2 hours on this attack of yours. MH (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Gaijin42 has agreed to step away. I've endorsed the SPI for a CU so it can get resolved ASAP (removing the point of contention for everyone). Hopefully both of you can get on in peace. --Errant (chat!) 17:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Michael has now been blocked, but based on a separate SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Photopinka. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Gaijin42 has agreed to step away. I've endorsed the SPI for a CU so it can get resolved ASAP (removing the point of contention for everyone). Hopefully both of you can get on in peace. --Errant (chat!) 17:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Gaijin42 Please get off my back. I have just contacted Wikipedia emergency email about the mocking way you have placed my photos. You should never so such things! This is the 2nd time you do that (the first time was publishing my blog screenshot which you unlawfully uploaded falsely claiming it's your own work. I spent the day helping another editor and am now wasting 2 hours on this attack of yours. MH (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- If we have access to the evidence now, why not add that evidence to the SPI now? It may eliminate the need for CU, which is supposed to be a last resort? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Block needed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Niqaluva (talk · contribs) needs a block.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Didn't see this, but saw the edit and blocked. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
abusive user Jerry Pepsi
hello. user jerry pepsi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jerry_Pepsi is being malicious and vandalizing the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory:_Married_%26_Dating he keeps undoing our factual edits simply to start a fight. for example, we keep including information like, megan is the girlfriend of 3 years, and he keeps undoing it. we believe he feels he owns this page and is not being a team player. he also continues to write the cast's full names when their full names are not associated with the show (aside from media articles, which he provided one that only identifies 4 of the cast members). we ask that you please ask him to stop or prevent him from further editing the page. "tvfanatics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvfanatics (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Didn't you just bring this here a few days ago? Also, do you have diffs of his unproductive editing, instigating, or failure to abide by WP:RS or WP:BLP? 192.76.82.90 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Edit: Also, you haven't notified the editor about this thread. You only said you've e-mailed Wikipedia about his actions. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is TVfanatics royalty of some sort? If not, then the only other reason I can think of for him to write "our factual edits...", "we keep including..." and "we ask.....", is that he is some way represents the TV show in question, Polyamory:Married & Dating. If that is the case, then TVfanatics should probably read our policies on not using Wikipedia as a promotional medium and editing with a conflict of interest. TVfanatics should also be apprised that the article does not in any way belong to the production or its producers, or even its fans, and that any attempt to assert ownership of the article by shutting out the contributions of other editors, or by insisting that the "ground rules" for the reality show be followed by Wikipedia as well, is going to end up badly for him.... them... whomever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Jerry Pepsi, on the other hand, should stop calling the other editor in an content dispute a "vandal" in edit summaries, as he has done a number of times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've requested temporary full protection of the article to get the combatants to start talking to each other, after which, if they don't start playing nicely together, an admin may have to deal out some blocks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Notified Jerry Pepsi of this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've fully protected the article for four days. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Notified Jerry Pepsi of this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've requested temporary full protection of the article to get the combatants to start talking to each other, after which, if they don't start playing nicely together, an admin may have to deal out some blocks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Jerry Pepsi, on the other hand, should stop calling the other editor in an content dispute a "vandal" in edit summaries, as he has done a number of times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is TVfanatics royalty of some sort? If not, then the only other reason I can think of for him to write "our factual edits...", "we keep including..." and "we ask.....", is that he is some way represents the TV show in question, Polyamory:Married & Dating. If that is the case, then TVfanatics should probably read our policies on not using Wikipedia as a promotional medium and editing with a conflict of interest. TVfanatics should also be apprised that the article does not in any way belong to the production or its producers, or even its fans, and that any attempt to assert ownership of the article by shutting out the contributions of other editors, or by insisting that the "ground rules" for the reality show be followed by Wikipedia as well, is going to end up badly for him.... them... whomever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm more than happy to engage with this editor to try to hash something out. In fact I have made those overtures at least a half dozen times, on his talk page, on my talk page and on the article's talk page. I have tried to explain various editing conventions (how episode numbers are reported in the infobox, how participation is recorded by season, etc.). I advised the editor through several warnings that removing valid sourced information for no valid reason could be considered vandalism and lead to consequences for his account. I explained in edit summaries and on the article talk page why various edits were being made and various pieces of information included. I received nothing in response beyond accusations of harassment and trolling.
- It's hard to find a middle ground when dealing with an editor who believes that The Globe and Mail does not meet the threshold for reliability. It is difficult to find common ground with an editor who changes his/her reasons for his/her actions from one edit to the next.
- I also suspect, based on the single-purpose nature of the editing, that User:Swingerlove is a sock puppet of Tvfanatics, who I also believe has a conflict of interest based on his/her statement that he is editing on behalf of the show. If these are the same person then one, the other or both should be blocked. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Sarot23 quacks about Nicholas Alahverdian
Further to this ANI discussion and this sockpuppetry investgation, would someone please block the latest sock, User:Sarot23? Since this is not a simple case of self-promotion and has BLP implications (see the original ANI report), I suggest salting Nicholas Alahverdian and Nick Alahverdian to make future attempts just that little bit more difficult. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- This page should not be speedily deleted because the article has citations from The Boston Globe, Associated Press, The Providence Journal, NBC and CBS affiliates, and other national sources. Sarot23 (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted (G4) and salted. Are there other alternate spellings that should also be dealt with? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sock blocked. --Rschen7754 20:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'd suggest salting Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al and similar titles, to try and reduce the effectiveness of any future socks. That, or an abuse filter for the surname might help. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- An edit filter might be better, if only because it would also catch the insertion of the case into unrelated or loosely related pages (as with this). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Confirmed sock of Fred newman (talk · contribs) - Alison ❤ 22:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Other articles this sock has a history of editing to add information to are Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth & Families, John J. McConnell, Jr., Robert G. Flanders, Jr., United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Matthew Fabisch, and Manatee Palms Youth Services. If a couple of other editors will add them to your watchlist or add a filter to prevent the repeated additions of the same photos and paragraphs about Alaverdian's non-notable lawsuit, that would be great. Thanks! NewAccount4Me (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Also, here is a link to the second ANI that has since been closed. Just so we keep all the records of this mess together (this is the third related ANI). NewAccount4Me (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Mmay2, redux
(Restoring this after it was deleted without explanation) Adding 'siblings' to infoboxes of multiple articles on mythology. I've requested oversight of this account before. History that includes copyright violations and serial additions of unsourced content, often erroneous or just overzealous. Doesn't explain edits or engage in discussion, and cumulatively these sorts of edits, while not literally vandalism, are disruptive. Some assistance would be appreciated, especially when dealing with a user who requires others to sweep up behind them on a regular basis. Thanks, JNW (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Problem IP range
Further to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive808#Possible_Problematic_IP_Range, the vandalism is ongoing. I have collated all the problematic IP addresses below. Interestingly there seem to be two ranges (2602:304 and 2600:1006) so I don't know what is going on there, but there is a huge overlap and a similar MO. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I was just in the process of doing the same work. This list of I.P addresses is the same editor and an absolute pest. I am pretty sure they are block evading but I haven't had time to go back and match against registered usernames who have been blocked. Support a long block for all of these I.P numbers. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- 2600:1006:B00D:30F5:C91C:4177:4B2E:941F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (May 8)
- 2600:1006:B120:CCCC:9C55:8353:686:199E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (May 8)
- 2600:1006:B128:76E6:D71C:4EE9:B640:3976 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (May 28)
- 2600:1006:b121:805f:8969:dcf8:80b5:3b4c (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 8)
- 2600:1006:B11E:79D6:E088:FCD5:D35B:C1F9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 13)
- 2600:1006:B10C:8A77:DEAF:987A:431C:4A41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 14)
- 2600:1006:B121:90C4:FCB8:11C9:7EA:1258 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (June 15)
- 2600:1006:B116:B0B4:93A7:BE9E:5DC3:9F7B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 16)
- 2600:1006:B113:DF3E:D6D4:C04E:C952:D765 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 18)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:5085:2436:2F06:8253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 21)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:8161:20E5:4812:6CAF (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 22)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:7C87:6003:D0DC:F798 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 23)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:E83E:A792:7798:A961 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 24)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:A0CE:8C9F:2737:DF4B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 24)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:C19A:A376:C9AD:25C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 25)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:8DE7:A919:12DE:D0A9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 25)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:598A:E225:CC32:756E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (June 25)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:AD42:5402:9D3:F2BF (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (June 25)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:7C61:46EB:E03F:5D2D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 26)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:6CC4:C07F:AEE8:A53F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 26)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:F165:F628:4232:ED76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 28)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:EC09:2593:5ED5:53AB (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (June 28)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:B137:43AA:F356:85F0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 28)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:922:2AC4:C2AF:B609 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 28)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:1545:7DE8:35BD:F71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 29)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:5849:DF70:94:898F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 30)
- 2602:304:CD01:1F59:695F:67EF:B28D:C510 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 30)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:C1CD:C4F5:41CA:D57E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 1)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:31EC:6415:6846:32AD (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 2)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:4DC4:24B6:BA6A:55A9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 3)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:3D34:580A:B97F:F635 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 3)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:BC78:8796:1777:7754 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 4)
- 2600:1006:B12D:B804:E2F8:EABA:AB30:754E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (July 4)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:4D18:EA16:7F72:4A6E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 7)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:89:67FF:96F4:5A6F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 8)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:A4A2:B867:8C97:2004 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 8)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:5D64:3D6A:1606:85C8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (July 9)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:9931:357C:17C5:FAB6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (July 9)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:6C8D:3732:9B0D:44B2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 10)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:C98D:A4D8:2C3E:4A8D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 11)
- 2602:304:AF53:3E99:88A2:BBB2:D3C3:5E85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 11)
- {{IP|2602:304:AF53:3E99:AC44:28
- ^ Maimonides, Hilkoth Išuth 10:7. Compare TB Ketubbot 11a; 82b
- ^ Qāfiḥ 1961, pp. 140‒141.
- ^ TB Ketubbot 54b.
- ^ According to Numbers Rabba 9:8, as well as Mishnah Ketubbot 7:6, whenever a married woman goes out publicly with her head uncovered, it is an act tantamount to exposing herself in public while naked, or what the Torah calls "erwah" (Heb. ערוה), and such an act would constitute grounds for a divorce without a settlement, as it is written: "…for he found in her a thing of nakedness" – (Heb. כי מצא בה ערות דבר) – Deut. 24:1.
- ^ Berešit Rabba 52:13.
- ^ Berešit Rabba, ibid.
- ^ So was I told by the late Rabbi Yosef Qāfiḥ, of blessed memory. Still, it was often that the woman would voluntarily waiver her rights to payment in order that her husband becomes willing to give her a divorce. In such cases, a court document was drawn up to that effect. For examples of this, see: Yehudah Nini (editor), al-Misawwadeh: Court ledger of Ṣan‘ā’'s Jewish community in the 18th century; Hebrew Translation by Nissim Benyamin Gamli’eli. Tel-Aviv 2001.
- ^ On the use of this term in Yemenite tradition, see: Yosef Tobi, Anecdotes on the Jews of Yemen from Responsa. A Tribe and Nation, VII (1973), pp. 271-291.
- ^ The above episode was relayed to me by R. Šalom b. Slaymān Cohen, born in Ṣan‘ā’ 1912.
- ^ Šulḥan Arukh, Even Ha-‛Ezer, 95:1
- ^ Maimonides, Hilkoth Išuth 16:4
- ^ According to the Talmud (Qiddušin 11b), as also explained by Maimonides (Hilkoth Išuth 10:8), the denarii mentioned here are coins having each the silver content of 1/8 that of the Holy Šeqel. Mahriṣ writes in his Tiklāl ‘Eṣ Ḥayyim, vol. I, p. 291b (the Redemption of the Firstborn), that the Holy Šeqel had, after the 20 % surcharge for redeeming one's son, the silver content of 20.16 grammes. This puts the weight of the Holy Šeqel at the time of Moses at only 16.128 grammes. This would mean that each denarius had the silver content of only 2.016 grammes. Maimonides adds that in addition to silver, these coins also had a copper alloy which amounted to seven times more than the volume made-up by the silver. The total aggregate of silver in two-hundred denarii amounts to 403.2 grammes, or what is the equivalent of twenty-five Holy Šeqels. (The silver content found in thirty-two U.S. Kennedy half-dollars of the 1964 mint, along with a little more than one-fourth of yet another U.S. Kennedy half-dollar, are the equivalent of the same. Each U.S. Kennedy half dollar of that mint weighs 12.5 grammes, and is of pure, unalloyed silver.) Needless to say, formerly, the purchasing power of this sum of money was greater than what it is today.
- ^ The Hebrew word used here is nedunya, or what is sometimes translated as 'the bride's outfit' (trousseau). The word is more correctly translated as 'largess,' or 'dowry,' since it is traditionally bestowed upon a man's daughter by her father before she marries, and she brings the same money and items into the marriage (whether it be money, jewellery or household effects), and which, if her husband takes responsibility over them, are deemed as merely a loan unto him, which he is able to freely make use of while married to her, but must return them unto her father in the event of his wife's early death. If the woman's father were a liberal man, he would not demand the return of such items. See: Maimonides, Hilkoth Išuth 16:1.
- ^ In Ṣan‘ā’ the custom was to write a fixed sum of one-hundred silver-[alloyed] qaflas in the ketubba of all virgins as the value of the nedunya (dowry). In the case of all widows or divorced women, the fixed sum was fifty silver-[alloyed] qaflas. The qafla was a weight equivalent to about 3.2 grammes. Mahriṣ writes in ‘Eṣ Ḥayyim (the Ketubba Version) that in the days of R. Yiḥye al-Bašīrī they made an enactment in the city of Ṣan‘ā’, that all financial obligations pledged by the husband to his wife should be written out in the local currency of those days. For example, for every 'one-hundred qaflas' of that ancient coin, there were actually only twenty-two qaflas of a pure and unalloyed silver content, while the rest was copper. This means that one-hundred qaflas was equal to 70.4 grammes of silver, excluding the copper content
- ^ In Ṣan‘ā’, this, too, was a fixed sum, written in the ketubba of every virgin. Widows and divorced women were given a fixed sum of half this price.
- ^ Meaning, the exit way from her house, as also the entranceway, should be facing the road or main street that is used by the Jews (‘Eṣ Ḥayyim).
- ^ By this is understood that the husband is obligated to provide his wife with household effects, such as a well, a millstone, toilet facilities, etc. It also implies providing her with a decent burial, and all other obsequies (‘Eṣ Ḥayyim).
- ^ The Hebrew word employed here is tosefeth, or what is translated by some as 'the increment.' This, too, was a fixed sum subscribed by all grooms in Ṣan‘ā’ and given to their espoused virgins, along with the principal (or dower's price), in the event of their divorcing their wives, or in the event of death. This sum was traditionally made out to be half of that of the principal. For example, if a virgin's ketubba was valued at 200 zuz, the increment was made out at one-hundred. If a widow's ketubba was valued at 100 zuz, the increment was made out at fifty. The custom in Yemen was not to consolidate these different financial obligations, or pledges, into one single, aggregate sum as is practised by some communities. Rather, all financial obligations were written out as individual components, and had the same fixed sums for all persons.
- ^ The Hebrew word used here is ‘iqar, or what is known as the 'principal liability' (i.e., two-hundred zuz or dinarius if he had married a virgin, or one-hundred if he had married a widow), to be paid unto the bride from her husband's property, in the event of her husbands' death, or of her being divorced by her husband.
- ^ The sense here is to the "kinyan sudar" (lit. "habit purchase"), which, in Yemen was always done by the bridegroom holding on to the corner of the Rabbi's talith (Prayer Shawl) which had been fitted with tzitzith (tassels). That is to say, the Rabbi who officiates over the betrothals allows the groom to hold on to the end of his mantle, with the tassel, at which time the Rabbi says to the groom, "Purchase by this fit [piece of] clothing," etc. (see: "Ketavim," vol. i, pp. 16-17, note 6, by Rabbi Yosef Qafiḥ. See also Yuda Levi Nahum, 1986, p. 162).
- ^ The Act of Purchase, or what is also called 'the cancellation of any statement' (biṭṭul muda‘a), is a ceremony that was also practised in divorces.
- ^ This co-signature on the Marriage Contract is believed to be that of R. David b. Yiḥye Ḥoṭer who served as President of the Court at Ṣan‛ā’ until the very year in which this deed was written.
- ^ "Whose inheritance is in the Garden of Eden," was an expression for someone who is already deceased.