Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

asia countries page

AuH2ORepublican and several editors are in dispute over whether palestine should or should not be grouped with generally recognized states or non un, non recognized states. Lo meiin (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Lo meiin You must notify any other users you report to this page. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

331 dot I already did that Lo meiin (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) Boomerang. It seem fishy that, Lo meiin, you did not edited those page nor their talk pages, and then as a new user, knew the way to ANI. Your first edit (that on not deleted page), was sending ANI-notice to AuH2ORepublican. Matthew hk (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to get a check-user sweep of Lo meiin against [nil Arabistan's was probably slightly more battleground based. Lo meiin - could you provide some diffs for AuH20's unilateral recategorisations on other pages. Depending on circumstances it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to do so, per bold, revert, discuss. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)] (the other primary party in the dispute), given that Lo meiin's handful of edits all focuses (from the start) on AuH20. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that Arabistan has been suspended or anything (I certainly haven't reported to third parties his abusive behavior against me or his POV edits), so I assume that he created this sock account in order to make it appear that there is a larger group of editors protesting against the compromise reached by consensus around a year ago on how Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara are categorized in Wikipedia articles listing sovereign states. I further suspect that the use of this IP starting on July 15 is another sock account of his: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.42.250.60 AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I left a similar comment in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arabistan already. Matthew hk (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Arabistan has made similar edits, but unlike him, I have not engaged in inflammatory jibes against any user. And also unlike him, I am committed to working with Au20 and all other editors to reach a compromise on this perennial dispute. And yes, I have made similar edits because it was just a way to bring attention to this dire issue. I regret all the inflammatory rhetoric and actions of all sockpuppets directed toward Au20 and all other editors (and also the despicable remarks Arabistan made towards pro-Israel Pacific Island nations) affected and I vow not to engage or associate with any of their activities (and tbh my name Lo meiin is indicative that I do not have a personal bias for either the Arab/Islamic states or Israel in this conflict, thank you.) My position stands as that both the states of Israel and Palestine should not receive differential treatment from all other generally recognized states on wikipedia, a major source of reference for many worldwide, and that is the consensus of wikipedia in general ( see list of sovereign states). I would also like to mention that Au20 has changed several articles to categorize palestine as not generally recognized unilaterally where it was already mentioned as generally recognized, such as countries by capitals in their native language and countries by land area, so he's in no position of accusing me of being an NPOV. Thank you Lo meiin (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Lo meiin (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• So the SPI case has closed as unrelated - I apologise to @Lo meiin:. Nosebagbear (talk)
• Returning to the original issue, I feel that both AuH20 and Arabistan were acting uncourteously in the primary dispute. Arabistan's was probably slightly more battleground based. Lo meiin - could you provide some diffs for AuH20's unilateral recategorisations on other pages mentioned. Depending on circumstances it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to do so, per bold, revert, discuss. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear, I dispute your characterization of my communications with Arabistan as "uncourteous"; I certainly did my best to hold my temper while dealing with insults from the latest inexperienced editor who jumped right into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from Day One. (As an aside, I guess that the restrictions on new editors being involved in edits that concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict no longer are enforced.) I would posit that it is not uncourteous to point out that the State of Palestine is not a generally recognized sovereign state, and I have written nothing negative of the Palestinian people; the same cannot be said for most single-issue editors who exclusively edit articles to group Palestine among generally recognized sovereign states, as their vitriol towards Israelis (and, often, Anericans) shows up within a week or two of signing up as editors. I trust that @User:Lo meiin will live up to his word and doesn't follow in the footsteps of so many prior editors whose sole apparent interest (and writing style) were similar to his.

Regarding the merits of my dispute with Arabistan to which Lo meiin has devoted every single one of his edits and actions, it simply is not the case that the State of Palestine "must be grouped" with generally recognized sovereign states just because it is a UN observer state. The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 11 of the 14 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 14 economies, only China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain and Australia have yet to recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City. Besides, observer-state status does not give such states any voting rights that UN members enjoy; being a UN observer state does grant the state the right to join UN specialized agencies, but, then again, Kosovo and the two New Zealand associated states also have been granted membership to certain UN specialized agencies. So the fact that Palestine, but not Kosovo, is a UN observer state is not much on which one can hang one's hat. I know that it's preferable to find a bright-line rule, but if such rule is contingent upon treating UN observer states as if they were UN member states it becomes arbitrary.

The fact remains that, while Palestine has received substantial recognition of sovereignty, falls far short of general international recognition, as it is not recognized by any G7 country, nor by most EU countries, nor by most major economies; by contrast, each of the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City are recognized by nearly all countries in such groups. When Palestine applied for UN membership, it withdrew its application when it became clear that it would be rejected by the UN Security Council. When Palestine is admitted as a member state of the UN, or when it has achieved recognition not just by a large majority of small countries, but also by a large majority of major economies (even if it continues to be blocked from UN membership), then it should be grouped with states with general international recognition.

In the meantime, I share the sentiment held by proponents of the State of Palestine here in Wikipedia that it is wrong to group Palestine with de facto states with little or no international recognition such as Abkhazia or Northern Cyprus. For this reason, I support the compromise reached by consensus several years ago of grouping Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara--each a de facto state with substantial, but not general, international recognition--together in a separate category. While these four de facto sovereign states do not come close to the level of international recognition enjoyed by, say, Slovenia or Bhutan, neither are they completely or overwhelmingly unrecognized states like Somaliland or Transnitria. I want Wikipedia to be a source of unbiased information to which children and adults may look to learn about the world around us, and that includes being honest when assessing the levels of recognition enjoyed by sovereign states.

I welcome comments from all interested editors and trust that we can reach a consensus. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• @AuH2ORepublican: As a critical note, the correctness of the argument is a content dispute, which this isn't the venue for (you can be right or wrong, and still be uncivil). As a fairly important point, someone (presumably accidentally, it doesn't look willful) has managed to merge my two comments up above, so they now read...oddly. To clarify I felt that Arabistan was being more discourteous and WP:BATTLEGROUND than yourself. Re-reading, I'm unsure about the sarcasm of several points, so that should probably be re-clarified as significantly more discourteous. Nosebagbear (talk)
• Importantly, though, neither editor has become egregiously, "think of the children", rude. The conversation is not currently active. I feel this would be better settled as "Deploy dispute resolution, such as Third Opinion, and everyone remember to walk softly when discussing dynamite". Nosebagbear (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Au20 from my observations, you have made uncourteous remarks towards Arabistan by labelling him a PLO propagandists and have depicted Palestinians are a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people, and I have seen no attacks against Americans by pro Palestine advocates. Furthermore, coming from a country with issues of its own with the US - China - I kind of see where some Palestinian advocates are coming from and they certainly don’t hate Americans, but the American government. I also know how it feels how, similarly to Palestine, the western world for some time left the PRC in the cold, despite the majority of the other countries recognizing us. Furthermore, Au20 has made many arbitrary edits without consulting other editors concerning categorization of states and is blind towards the fact that most countries that are against Palestine are western world countries that take Israel’s side. The consensus is actually that UN members and observers are considered distinct from the 9 states with partial/no recognition and Cook Islands and Niue. Despite this, and despite nose bag bear confirming this established position, and that the rest of the country pages on Wikipedia stipulating so, Au20 decides to stubbornly revert the corrections made. Btw, the un does call Palestine the state of Palestine, and the rest of the states have 102 and less recognition, while Palestine has ~140/193

Lo meiin (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"Au20 from my observations, you have made uncourteous remarks towards Arabistan by labelling him a PLO propagandists and have depicted Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people, and I have seen no attacks against Americans by pro Palestine advocates."

@Lo meiin, these are defamatory accusations against me, with absolutely no bearing on the truth. Take back what you said, or else provide evidence to back up your cowardly accusation.

I have written thousands of words regarding the limited recognition of the State of Palestine's sovereignty, and the only time that I have mentioned the PLO was when I told Arabistan "you go as far as to express glee in thinking that Pacific Island nations that support the State of Israel "will be washed up in rising tides." That last phrase sounds almost poetic [enough] for the PLO to hire you to write propaganda for the group (remember its old boast that it would "push the Jews to the sea"?)." I have never accused someone of being a "PLO propagandist" for arguing in favor of deeming the State of Palestine to be a generally recognized sovereign state; I have pointed out to an editor who expressed happiness at the thought of thousands of Pacific Islanders being drowned that his language was reminiscent of the PLO's "old boast" of which you've surely heard. A few days ago you wrote about how horrible Arabistan's words had been, and particularly noted his attack upon Pacific Islanders whose governments supported the State of Israel; now you claim that my reaction to that same disgusting statement is evidence that I "depict[] Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people"? Talk about "uncourteous."

As for your claim that you "have seen no attacks against Americans by pro Palestine advocates," you certainly haven't seen the insults levied against me (an American) and other editors (many of them Americans) through the years--well, except the ones by Arabistan and by yourself. You did see Arabistan refer to the U.S. as "Israel's lackeys," which is an insult to all Americans; if you don't know what "lackey" means, you should look it up so that you know why it is an insult.

By the way, the worst offender in hurling insults against editors who acknowledge that the State of Palestine is not a generally recognized sovereign state was not Arabistan or Talastan, but User talk:Kawhilaugh42. He, too, was a single-issue editor (take a guess on the subject matter) who started off being fairly polite, but eventually started making baseless accusations and lobbing profanities in Tal pages and in his descriptions of edits. After he was blocked indefinitely for persistent vandalism, he created a sock account with the name "Do laima." Do laima claimed to be Burmese, and wholly agnostic on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, yet from his first day on Wikipedia he commented and edited exclusively on pages concerning the international recognition of the State of Palestine. A few days later, Do laima was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Kawhilaugh42 (see User talk:Do laima). Are you familiar with Kawhilaugh42 and Do laima? Their orthography and grammar remind me a bit of yours. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Au20,

I fully understand that you’re fed up to the brim from dealing with these inexperienced editors (and I don’t blame you) and I am just as appalled and frustrated with their behavior as are you. However, there is no need to lose our cool here; I am not accusing you of anything, I am just pointing out the faults of all sides here; just as I fully condemn arabistans vitriols such as calling you a “smarta**” and calling allies of Israel it’s lackeys and expressing indifference to the threat climate change poses to many pacific island nations, I am just simply pointing out for the sake of professionalism that we cannot assume a country of 4 million people ( plus millions more in the diaspora ) all bear animosity for Israelis, Jews, Americans, and others (which is what I interpreted your statement about arabistan sounding so poetic should join the PLO implied), and I regret if you thought I said otherwise. Likewise, we cannot assume that Israel a country of 8 million + the diaspora are bloodsthirsty contempt and cold blooded murderers and that none wants better future for both peoples ( which is what many Arabs like to assert ). And yes, from my research I am fully aware that the PLO has engaged in inflammatory rhetoric against Jews and Israelis, but yet again that cannot be said about all Palestinians. Furthermore, part of my sympathy with Palestinians and Israelis stems from the fact that my country, mainland China, was effectively shunned by much of the world throughout much of the Cold War and was too denied recognition by some western states and their allies and others. It is not fair or correct to assume that I am a Sockpuppet of theirs as I have edited non related articles such as one on ASAP rocky and I have repeatedly distanced myself from their behavior and am trying to start a dispute to put an end to this dispute. More importantly, I suggest that a compromise can be that Palestine will be listed as an observer state in its own category unambiguously and the rest of the un members remain grouped together. Notwithstanding my chinese heritage, and for the purposes of NPOV, I suggest that Taiwan province will be placed separately from Palestine, the un members, and de facto states in the same category. And btw, just FYI, you talk about maintaining consensus while you are going against the consensus that un members and observers are grouped together accordingly and separate from 9 other states, according to asia, list of sovereign states, list of countries and territories by continent, gallery of sovereign states flags in Asia, and flags, coat of arms, and governments of Asia pages. This is, in my opinion, the best compromise

Lo meiin (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@User:Lo meiin, you accuse me of having "depicted Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people," and then you have the gall to claim that you are not accusing me of anything? I don't know about you, but I think that depicting an entire people/nation as "a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people" would be pretty bad, and had I done so I would deserve to be ostracized by society at large and the editing community in particular. But I have never referred to the Palestinian people that way, and for you to assert that I have is, indeed, an attack upon my person, and I will defend myself lest others get the impression that I am guilty of the disgusting behavior that you falsely attributed to me. Once again, I ask for you to withdraw the accusation of ethnic intolerance that you lobbed against me. While I appreciate your change in tone, you need to clear the record in writing.

As for your "solution," I agree with you that the State of Palestine should be in a separate category from Japan and Sri Lanka, but the reason why Palestine shouldn't be listed with Japan and Sri Lanka (and Qatar and East Timor) is not because it isn't a UN member state, but because its level of international recognition, while substantial, is not generalized. It is possible for a state to be a generally recognized sovereign state without being a UN member state--after all, Switzerland wasn't one until a few years ago, and Vatican City never has been one, yet they both have long enjoyed general international recognition of their sovereignty--although rejection of UN membership certainly is a sign that the state does not enjoy general international recognition. If and when the State of Palestine is recognized by large majorities of not only small economies but also of large economies, and of large majorities of countries in every continent, then it would be generally recognized (and should be characterized as such in encyclopedias) even if it chooses not to join the UN as a member. And had Palestine not sought recognition as a UN observer state when its application for membership was going to be rejected, it wouldn't change the fact that it enjoys substantial international recognition of its sovereignty. So I don't think that "UN observer" should be the category under which Palestine is listed.

In the past, the consensus that emerged was to group Palestine, Kosovo, Taiwan and Western Sahara as de facto states with substantial, but not generalized, international recognition, which avoided grouping such states with de facto states with little or no international recognition (such as Abkazia, Northern Cyprus, etc.). That is still my preference, and believe that if we carved out Taiwan and Western Sahara (the two whose recognition is less substantial than that of Kosovo or Palestine, although, as you surely know, Taiwan's international recognition is complicated by the fact that so many countries have non-diplomatic relations with it in order not to anger the PRC) and grouped them with states with little or no recognition that it would violate NPOV. I guess that yet another category could be created for those two states, but I don't think that there would be much appetite for that.

As always, I would like to hear what other interested editors have to say. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

MarcusBritish personal attacks

Capitalization wars

-EEng

In this edit, User:MarcusBritish doubles down on his personal attacks on me that he started in an RM discussion here. I understand that he has some things to argue about, but this is not the way. His personal attacks should be stricken. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you quote the part that's a personal attack? I'm not really interested in reading someone's manifesto. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: At a guess, it's within these last sentences. The proposer is out of his depths here, trying to revise a topic in which there are editors far better suited to the job. Proposer's claim "most sources don't cap it" is a lie. His dating is selective, misleading and abuses the notions of editing in good faith. Finally, proposer is on a never-ending crusade to rename all "Campaign" articles, without waiting for discussions between other members to reach consensus. This is disruptive editing loaded with mishandled evidence and contempt for English standards. This is deviant attempt to Americanise historical articles. How does an RBMK reactor explode? Lies. I've applied bold to what I'm guessing may be the personal attack. Amaury • 05:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he accuses me of lies and bad faith, but the entire paragraphs are personal attacks. Instead of focusing on the issue, he is talking mostly about me, as he perceives me. He talks about my past, my country and state of origin, my career, etc., all as part of saying why I'm not fit to argue my point with him, a military historian. I agree it's a huge wall of text; it should all be stricken, rev-del'd, and then he can be invited to try again if he can do so without the attack. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

To quote the start from my second link (and there's more that came in earlier threads, easy enough to find since he has very few edits this year doing anything other than arguing to capitalize "Campaign"): N-grams produce spurious results that don't tell the whole truth. Neither does the proposer. He doesn't use genuine references, only cons the community with cherry-picked samples. Has no genuine interest in history, and probably doesn't own a single historical text. Editors should stick to what they know and not meddle in areas they have no clue about. This is too personal and accusatory of bad faith. He can make points about N-grams without attacking me. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like MarcusBritish was subject to an indefinite block from 2014 to 2017 for unspecified reasons, but it apparently involved "continued personal attacks" and a "harassing email". So, maybe MarcusBritish should tone down his rhetoric. If someone wants to strike a perceived personal attack, they can; however, policy forbids using revdel on personal attacks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The personal attack has been stricken from the RM discussion. Thanks. I care less about the bits on his talk page and the continuing untruths and attack below. Dicklyon (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hardly untruths when there are links to your own contradictory posts and made-up policies, a fine history of terminological inexactitudes. I will be making sure all your military history based RMs are notified on the MILHIST notice board, which to date you have avoided doing, be sure of that. No more lurking in the shadows with only ignorant "yes" men and no expert editors being advised who might challenge your controversial moves, and rightly so. You should be advising MILHIST yourself, instead of trying to go behind the backs of editors who worked on those articles and put in far more effort than you on sourcing material. And I'm still not 100% convinced that you're not operating on behalf of Google but are unwilling to disclose your conflict of interest. — Marcus^(talk) 19:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand now why Dicklyon has tried to subvert my complaints about his moving Campaign articles. In 2015 he was blocked for several months and returned under a standard offer that requires him to not engage in controversial actions such as mass page moves. That is precisely what he is doing now. I would like for an admin to please review the comment and links I left below, as well as Dicklyon's latest history of moves, which are en masse and have caused concerns at MILHIST, concerns that he has chose to ignore and work against. Ergo, he is in direct breach of his unblock terms, which are very specific and state no date when past blockable behaviour can re-commence. Untruths, he says. Unburied truths, I say. He has committed to circumventing those terms to achieve his goal. Again, I repeat my claims that this editor is tendentious and bad faith is the case; this is not an attck it is a foregone conclusion based on observation and evidenced patterns of behaviour. Doing exactly what the unblock offer told him not to cannot be construed into anything other than disrespect for the community process which sought to reintegrate him in the first place; an offer was made and has since been ignored. Since admins are meant to remain impartial, my concerns should be given due consideration. — Marcus^(talk) 20:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• 12 July Marcus criticises use of N-grams with links to third-party sources identifying shortcomings
• Dicklyon ignores comment; states that "no-one has shown that moves are controversial"
• 13 July Marcus indicates criticism comment and emphasises point that N-grams data is not verifiable
• Dicklyon admits "n-grams tell only a tiny fraction of the story" then claims "nobody is relying on n-grams as a 'reliable source' nor as the only way to look at usage in sources"
• Dicklyon states "I generally do look beyond n-grams, especially if the result is not overwhelming"

Since this discussion, in which N-grams were addressed, Dicklyon has proceeded to ignore opposition from MilHist members to use of N-grams to move articles to lowercase titles. According to his edit history he has continued to move a lot of military Campaign articles, many without even using Requested Moves, but in the case of RMs only ever used N-grams as "evidence", despite admiting that they only tell a tiny fraction of the story that he doesn't rely on, and demanding other editors use books to challenge him, contrary to WP:BURDEN. All N-grams results show differences between usage of trivial sums, like 0.0000001% differences. Shortcomings of N-grams include: Google scans a limited number of sources, OCR is not reliable for scanning upper/lowercase accurately, N-grams does not identify sentences, indexes, titles, captions, etc. And most vitally, N-grams does not link to its sources, which violates WP:V - N-grams can be seen both as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH given the nature of how the results are gathered and interpreted. In the case of Waterloo Campaign, Dicklyon made a conscious choice to only search titles from 1970 - those exorcising a potentially vast number of titles from 1815. I consider this his most obvious bad faith act. He uses these results as "evidence" to to trick RMs into a false consensus. He ignored the concerns abour N-grams, by palming me off with I am well aware of the limitations of such stats, but you seem to be confused by the numbers. No further reasoning, just prenentious a put-down so he could move on and wilfully ignore the concerns. The entire discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign runs in the same format - someone makes a comment, Dicklyon puts it down with his own POV and no-one but me maintains their argument. This includes the fact that Dicklyon interprets policy in his own fashion, is selective when it comes to policy, and even invents policy that doesn't even exist, such as today, when I challenged him on only sourcing from 1970 - something he has never done before - he claimed We usually focus on recent decades when discussing usage in sources and has yet to respond to me request for the policy that states anything of the sort is to be practiced. Why? Because he made it up, after biasing his data to broaden the N-gram in his favour. Bad faith not only assumed, but evidenced.

To summarise, please go see the Milhist discussion, the Waterloo Campaign discussion, as well as the "evidence" he presents at past RMs related to military campaigns (only N-grams, before and still despite concerns from multiple editors); consider the claims he makes that contradict one another and the policy he raises but does not link because it does not exist. Then you'll understand the frustration. Dicklyon is engaged in long-term disruptions which he handles via WP:CIVPUSH when challenged, as well as WP:PLAYPOLICY. This is not typical good faith behaviour, and so I stand by my right to challenge it, since it is so widespread. I don't care about my attitude, this is a matter of tendentious editing, with spurious evidence, ignores the concerns of MilHist, continues to move "dozens" (exact count unknown) of articles with no verifiable evidence, only this controversially unverifiable N-gram nonsense. Moves made using a source which cannot be verified. Dicklyon can shout all day about NCCAP, AGF and whatever other policy cares to invent, the fact stands, WP:V is a core policy, a pillar, a major requirement of any wikipedia article. He knows his data fails that test, yet persists, manipulates N-grams further, undermines policy and now he's here, trying to silence his greatest detractor. Because he can't prove his Google-sourced data is strong enough, he has to force his POV in, and that can only be achieved by manipulating searches, ignoring other editors, citing fake policy, not letting a consensus be determined. All bad faith behaviours. If anyone is not convinced that this stream of behaviour is questionable, they either need to open their eyes, or explain to me where I'm wrong. And I don't mean for Dicklyon to do that himself, given his conflict of interest, though he can attepmt to defend himself, as necessary. Maybe another "Poppycock" is all a common peasant like me needs, to stand corrected? Even though my opinions were "noted", no attempt was made to correct behaviour or seek alternative sources for future moves. N-grams is clearly wiser than all of us at Milhist, put together, since our concerns have not been heeded. That's one man's pretentious ego for you and yes, it disgusts me.

You can argue between youselves about my uncivil nature all you like, I don't really care what anyone thinks of me... but this is a WP:BOOMERANG case if you actually review the widespread amount of evidence regarding Dicklyon's current behaviour and crusade, which I have seen unfolding for several weeks, challenged at MilHist, but remains unchecked. I have never reverted his edits, nor !voted in RMs until now, my concerns have been made in only two places and have been supported, to some degree. So his comment above about "He can make points about N-grams without attacking me." Yeah, we tried that, many times. He swept our concerns under a mat and trod all over it, to continue revising article titles to the way he wants, and everyone at MilHist be buggered. Screw us military historians, with all our books and knowledge, if all we need is Google and their limited inaccurate data, let's burn down all libraries and make Dicklyon master of digitised world history. Because all this behaviour amounts to is authorative, anti-consensual and loaded with POV pushing behaviour because of its use of manufactured evidence that is not really evidence because none of us can see it. — Marcus^(talk) 06:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It sure looks to me as if Dicklyon is engaging in a mass pagemove attempt, and thus it's time to revoke the unblock. That indefinite block came after it was shown that he was happy to ignore basic policy, so why should we be surprised that he's happy to ignore those unblock conditions? Moreover, WP:CIR; I don't have to be a specialist in military history to know that the solid military history sources use "Campaign" in such contexts. If you're not competent in an area, stay out (that's why I don't do significant editing in medicine or speculative philosophy) and definitely don't violate your unblock conditions in a fashion that's already disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

What? If Dicklyon behaves disruptively, then he should be straightly blocked. Who cares about conflicts from 2015 now? Don’t—please—make this site into a sort of ru.Wikipedia where ancient blocks are broadly used as a pretext for discrimination. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The moves in question started with a discussion on the MihHist project page, and have been discussed there at length. I still have not been able to elicit a single allegation that any of the undiscussed moves was improper – just generalized whining like Marcus's. About a dozen proposed at RMTR were challenged and went to RM discussions, where the consensus to follow our usual policies and guidelines was reaffirmed. My move log shows about 75 "Campaign->campaign" moves in 40 days, a rate of less than 2 per day; not exactly "mass moves". Most "XXX campaign" articles were already at the correct lowercase title, as the original discussion pointed out. Nobody has pointed out any MilHist move that I got wrong; nobody has reverted one or opened a discussion about why it was wrong or even controversial. Marcus and a few have made generalized complaints, but can't point to a case where my move was not with consensus, or had some reason to be considered controversial; I have asked. The project talk page has been involved; a small move to rewrite the style rules for MilHist didn't get much traction there. In addition, I've moved over 6000 other articles since my 2015 unblock, and have stayed away from trouble by only moving where the consensus is clear. When people have objected to their favorite area being downcased, I have engaged in good-faith discussions, and in almost all cases the consensus re-affirmed the reason for the moves, following policy and guidelines. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign for details. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

A whole debate took place at MilHist. Dicklyon characteristically boils it down to "whining", which is an attack on multiple editors at MilHist. Proving he has chosen to ignore editors with issues and step over them, set his own standards, invent policy, and to hell with anyone who disagrees. He sets his own terms for what he considers a "valid complaint", despite a number of editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign having concerns regarding his moves. It is not up to him to set the terms of discussion or consensus. When someone raises issues with your edits, you stop to discuss. He has chosen to ignore and proceed. In violation of his standard offer, since these are mass moves which have been deemed controversial; 75 moves are a mass number, the timeline is moot here. There is no good faith here, rather a load of disrespectful scheming per WP:PLAYPOLICY. I believe @Keith-264 raised the initial concern regarding all these Campaign movea, and will ping him, incase he'd like to comment further. — Marcus^(talk) 16:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No Incnis Mrsi, it's not "ancient" or "ru" to uphold the terms of standard offers for unblocks indefinitely. I accepted an interaction ban in 2017, are you seriously suggesting that "when enough time passes" (subjective in itself) I can just throw that away and self-determine my own terms or ignore them altogether, go get up that other editor's nose and claim immunity based on "who cares anymore?" notions? If an unblock offer was set by the community via consensus, you respect the community, no matter how much time passes, you don't give them the two fingers when you feel you've had enough... I kind of find your claim that this would be "discrimination" hyperbolical/dog whistling/virtue signalling terminology. On what level is that even the case? It's more discriminatory to turn a blind eye to wilfully breaking standard offer terms, when we know for a fact that other editors are blocked for far less, mor often. An admin's duty is to maintain the integrity of the community, not overturn it! The whole point of offers by ANI/Arbcom is not to restrict editors, but to be lenient while also preventing further disruptions by giving unblocked editors a way of self-moderating the behaviour that got them blocked in the first place. This is effectively a breach of contract. The ru.wiki and en.wiki are two different cultures, no point comparing apples and oranges, that too could be seen as discrimination. All that said, I'm not saying I want to see Dicklyon indef, I'm just saying that I have gripes with his behaviour and having learned it got him blocked in the past, we can factually establish that he already knows it is considered disruptive, therefore he wilfully put himself back in this position. So it wouldn't be discrimination, it would be upholding the standard offer, which he has chosen to violate. So, to answer your "who cares?" - anyone who cares about the wiki community and genuinely respects consensus cares. — Marcus^(talk) 16:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m unable to find such person as Dicklyon anywhere in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. His unblock log doesn’t mention any specific restriction either, only a decision to unblock despite some IP socking. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI: User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here. Prodego talk 04:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC and Accept reason: Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves. Prodego talk 04:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC) - there's the community decision and admin performing unblock terms stated. No duration/end date for those terms was specifically set. Tell me, if you accept a standard offer are you at liberty to determine when you are able to no longer work in accordance with those terms? Wouldn't that make the purpose of consensus obsolete? As far as I'm concerned, it's a bit like being on parole – maintain good behaviour per the terms of your unblock. He accepted. Why should he be at leisure to ignore those terms just because "some time" has passed? Is a standard offer only a binding agreement until you get bored of it or because it hampers your editing agenda? If you think so, that kind of undermines the whole point of standard offers, designed to help once-disruptive editors stay on track. The socking issue was another discussion, I gather, but the terms of his unblock stand now, because he is editing now contrary to those terms. I wonder if the unblocking admin Prodego would agree with you the "who cares?" philosophy. — Marcus^(talk) 20:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: The Ping: I was surprised by a number of page moves all from X Campaign to X campaign. It was replied that mooted changes had been notified on the talk pages and that there was an N-gram giving campaign majority usage, which seemed to me to be insufficient. I thought that this N-gram was a blunt instrument that lacked qualitative validity. I think that Marcus is more right than wrong in this and that the proposer of Campaign campaign moves should bear the onus of showing why, not burdening others with the work of refuting his claims. Regards 18:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith-264 (talk • contribs)

MarcusBritish, Incnis Mrsi, Nyttend: In response to some discussion here, I am of the opinion that since so much time has passed without escalating to a block, User:Dicklyon met any restrictions from my 2015 unblock and that they are no longer relevant. All users should avoid large scale, controversial actions. Prodego ^talk 23:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In which case the solution is to block now, because Dicklyon has a history of large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves, because he's recently engaged in large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves, and there's no reason to believe that he will stop making large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves when those actions have continued from at least four years ago to the present. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Very few of my moves have been challenged or reverted, and most of the ones challenged were subsequently upheld in move discussions. If I made a handful of mistakes among thousands of uncontroversial moves, can I ask for forgiveness? I will, if you'll point some out. You can read about the one most recently reverted (by Marcus, as it happens) at Talk:Gettysburg_Campaign#Reverting_move; I don't see why anyone would consider that controversial in light of all the recent discussions reaffirming following WP:NCCAPS and such, but in this case Marcus just made a mistake in trying to check the evidence for it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't the only incident since that block. Looking at Dicklyon's pagemove log, which is long, I can see the now he mass-moved articles on lighthouses, which all got reverted (see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lighthouses#Naming_convention), and he also mass-moved articles on World Heritage Sites, also reverted. He had many other mass moves that seem to have stuck, including changing dash styles and capitalization in titles of train station articles. I'm not sure if these changes were discussed, as he doesn't link to discussions in his mass moves. Though he will apparently complaint about other people making "undiscussed moves" [1]. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I made fewer than 100 lighthouse moves, based on usage in sources (was I wrong on any of those?). Sam Sailor subsequently (months later) moved about 300 lights and lighthouses to uppercase, without discussion. I had dropped out of that dispute pretty early when I saw that some controversy was developing; Sam jumped in after that settled down, and did them all his way, capitalized for no particularly good reason. I asked for some of Sam's capitalizations of longstanding lowercase titles to be reverted (see Someguy1221's link above), but Sam just did them again, so I stayed away after that. Those are the moves that should be challenged, since they violate naming policy and style guidelines. Sam hasn't been around recently, but if someone knows him maybe they can ask him what he was thinking. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

On the World Heritage sites, those moves were subsequent to RM discussions at Talk:World_Heritage_Site#Requested_move_15_May_2018 and Talk:World_Heritage_Site#Requested_move_27_August_2018 in light of which they had no reason to be considered controversial, if I read the history correctly. But Randy never gives up, and got it reversed later, so now all those titles violate WP:NCCAPS. Since then I stayed out of it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I moved about 900 rivers and creeks, too. Nobody complained or tried to reverse the decision that we had discussed. Nobody thanked me for all the work, either. I just keep doing my bit to improve the encyclopedia, mostly without controversy or fanfare. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And I moved well over 1000 Jr and Sr bios per MOS:JR, and engaged in related discussions repeatedly reaffirming that conforming to that style provision was not controversial. Similarly thousands of other dash and comma and case and hyphen fixes subsequent to clear consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221, Nyttend – Perhaps as the responding admins, you might indulge me by determing whether these MOS:CAPS edits constitute a form of COI? Since Dicklyon is engaged in moving a ton of military campaign articles, subtly changing related MOS guidelines to support his own position more closely, without discussion (note also he reverted admin Amakuru who disputed him per lack of consensus) seems to cross the line in my mind. He's been engaged in lengthy discussions and disputes since May at MilHist regarding these moves, so making MOS edits seems highly inappropriate and reinforces everything I've been saying about his autocratic nature with regards to ignoring everyone else opinion and continuing to move articles regardless of opposition. Even the comments you both made here, relating to his history of controversial mass moves despite being under a Standard Offer does not appear to have slowed him down. I'm not directly seeking to get this guy blocked, that's your call, but every argument I raise, he rejects without consideration. I'm literally competing with a WP:CIVPUSH beast here, even when I break down my argument into point form he plays ignorant and spews out demands for example cases and evidence, never accepting that the WP:BURDEN is and has always been on him, as the contributing editor. Please just fucking shoot me! — Marcus^(talk) 21:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely very concerning to me that Dicklyon there is not only editing the MOSCAP guidelines, but edit warring at the MOSCAP guidelines, while also in a contentious dispute over moves related to those guidelines. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

My intention in reverting Amakuru with an explanation in the edit summary was to convince him, not to edit war. I'm sure he was notified; that was the end of it, it appears. That MilHist bit was clearly out of line with the rest of the MOS, and seemed to encourage over-capitalization; it needed to be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

MarcusBritish has engaged in discussions at MilHist here, here and at Waterloo campaign. I have found their posts repeatedly aggressive and uncivil, rising personal attacks. The effect upon me is much the same as what they ascribe to the actions of Dicklyon. I find it unacceptable. These moves are IAW WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS and criteria established by these. While objections have been raised to these moves, there has been little or no evidence presented, addressing the criteria, to retain caps. I find that the most controversial aspect of these moves/discussion to be the posts and conduct by MB. This has now been moved to MOS:CAPS. Let us hope that the discussion there does not reach the same level and focuses on the issues rather than following what has preceded. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And the Award for Best Hyperbole of ANI goes to Cinderella157 for playing the victim, whether direct or collateral, despite barely having conversed with me a month ago. I think he might be confusing my frankness and honesty for aggression, some of us don't beat about the bush, but the word "aggression" serves as a dog whistle when no examples are presented. Also, naming standards of articles are not likely to be determined here, so no point even discussing it. Although Cindy is wrong, core WP:V policy must be considered before invoking lesser MOS guidelines – N-grams cannot be verified so the moves fail to be IAW WP:V before they even reach MOS styling. Can't ignore WP:V just to turn a few C into c, that's beyond stupid – write the encyclopedia first, make it pretty later. I have to question your lack of integrity here Cindy, over-stating my behaviour simply because you support Dicklyon's position and don't want to see it undone. And yet one thing fails to escape me: you never lifted your finger once to help him move a single article, even though there are so many. You crop up in every RM he raises, giving you the image of a pandering "yes" man, and it appears that you also attack editors, such as PBS} for being "vexatious" when asking questions on separate RMs. Clearly you don't realise that two different RMs may not be seen by the same people, and therefore it becomes necessary to pose the same question at each. Your response was aggressive, perhaps because he sees the same flaws in your claims as I do... POV-pushing MOS standards over policy. Come back to me when you have clean hands. — Marcus^(talk) 19:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The afore post by MB makes the point regarding what I have perceived and that this should be considered as "chronic" and "intractable" behaviour per the purpose of this page. It is the repeated nature of the behaviour that I have sought to raise by my initial post. I have provided links to threads by way of examples where many (but not all) posts by MB in those threads demonstrate the repeated nature of what I have perceived. MB states (without diff or fuller context): it appears that you also attack editors, such as PBS for being "vexatious" when asking questions on separate RMs. I have stated that certain actions might appear vexatious. However, MB states here (in one of the threads at MilHist I have linked): "needs moving to small case because 'evidence' says otherwise" comes across as vexatious. By their own statement and standards above (not mine), the quoted text would constitute a personal attack on their part. From my perception, it is posts to the end of that particular thread (ie here) which start to get hostile. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

MarcusBritish has made this statement: Okay, enough with the trolling.[2] It is an unqualified accusation of trolling. I have struck the quoted sentence per WP:NPA. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:Trolling is a legitimate Wiki-meta document. Italicising words doesn't make them any more vaild, that's your emphasis. It reeks of a desperate attemt to defame and derail the discussion. The same thing you tried with PBS and probably with editors before your topic ban. I won't go there, I'll just note that you're not a reliable witness given your own history. — Marcus^(talk) 04:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You'll be pretty busy if you try to remove all his personal attacks in that section, such as "Oh boy... you can't be that ignorant, surely!? ... you love saying how everyone else is wrong but you". And "your deluded interpretations of my posts amount to fiction"; and "You constantly dismiss core policy that describes how to write the encyclopedia, because you're so obsessed with reformatting or reengineering what other creators have written." I don't think he has any real insight into what I love or what I'm obsessed with, and his concept that I ignore WP:V by posting n-gram stats is really just nutty. I may inject a mild sarcasm now and then, but I'm doing my best to not just make up expletives about what might be going on in his brain. I can't actually come up with any cogent printable theory for that, so I hold my tongue. Oh, well, as he complains there, he's "not quite feeling 'backed' by MilHist on the matter despite what I've read in those May–July threads and my best attempts to find a solution." His best attempt has just taken a solution that had been found (that is, following WP:NCCAPS per evidence from book n-gram stats and per RM discussion consensus on a dozen articles) and turning it back to a bunch of unproductive ranting about me and WP:V. Thanks for your comments, C. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Look at your own words here. "nutty" and "unproductive" – indicators of a pretentious editor who has no interest in the opinion of detractors. You and Cinarella have been at it before. You also remarked on PBS right here, loving that Cinderella called him "vexatious". Quite the tag-team you two make. And now your "friend" is here, giving you his support, not by defending you, but by attacking me. Think admins are fool enough to fall for that? — Marcus^(talk) 04:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, "unproductive ranting" was uncalled for, and I apologize; it snuck past by restraint filter. The "just nutty" bit I have to stand by as my assessment of your attempt to apply WP:V against my work on caps fixes. If anyone else thinks this is in any way sensible, I'd like to hear from them. It's OK that you don't trust n-gram stats, but WP:V has nothing to do with this whole issue. Dicklyon (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not projecting your own "chronic" and "intractable" behaviour which got you a WW2-related topic ban? Not sure what you're hoping to gain by linking comments made just over a month ago, which have probably been seen already, except to maintain your fidelity for Dicklyon's Crusade. Little to see here, since I told you before, frankness is not aggression. It's just plain talk which you are subjecting to your own fanciful ideals. Many Wiki editors are just as plain speaking as me, some moreso. Dicklyon knows now to man up and work round it, you should too. Wiki isn't here to change attitudes, it's a database dressed up for the interwebs, nothing more, certainly not a social club for you to be judgemental of others in. If you think anything in that linked comment can be infered as "hostile", well... plainly put: you need to go back to the dictionary and relearn some foul or offensive words. I don't see any there. Extreme hyperbole. FYI, regarding your snarky responses to PBS: diff 1diff 2, context not really required, I'll just sum it us as "aggressive and hostile" retorts to simple questions, shall I, kettle? Sincerely, frying pan aka — Marcus^(talk) 03:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Previously removed attack was replaced with this by MarcusBritish: Okay, enough with the WP:trolling. Perhaps Bishonen might explain why this is rarely ever acceptable? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This an excercise in WP:Canvassing admins now, Cindy? Is it normal for ANI to allow an uninvolved party to campaign the admins they feel will support them best? What's the term for that? Something appropriately Australian... kangaroo court! Your poison pen not enough to dramatise the conversation for your amusement? Also, it's begging the question why Wikipedia would create essays then disuade people from linking them. If you can't call a spade out, especially after 3 months of wilful ignorance and/or tendentious editing, he'll just continue arguing ad infinitum, as Dicklyon does to palm-off his detractors. You're not helping him, btw, just increasing the odds of his controversial edits being scrutinised; he isn't doing himself any favours. That move log of his..... *whistles* — Marcus^(talk) 04:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Marcus, this screed is highly inappropriate. I'd strongly suggest you refrain from replying until an admin weighs in, or the discussion gets archived. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Could someone quickly protect these pages please?

One IP-hopping editor is currently orphaning Template:Infobox India district at a pretty fast pace (examples: [3], [4], [5] . This is almost certainly the same editor who's been recently active in several TFDs for similar infoboxes (they all geolocate to the same city and provider, they all display the same strong opinions), so they know very well that they can't just orphan an established template like that without discussion. I can't reach them, as the IP is very dynamic: they make and edit or two and then the IP immediately changes. What is the best way to stop this madness? I'm thinking a temporary semi-protection to the pages that still transclude the template they're trying to orphan might help. – Uanfala (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Adding that there we might also need a longer-term solution here. It's likely this isn't the only infobox this editor will try to surreptitiously orphan like that. They've been active for quite some time at TfD, and even though the community oftentimes ends up agreeing with their points, the way they go about making them is not always constructive (for an example, (see this long quite discussion and search for "canvassing). Now, I've reverted a few of their recent edits, and they've started stalking me (for example, reverting me on an unrelated article [6] or posting to my talk page about another completely unrelated edit I've done [7]). – Uanfala (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The ranges are 89.14.0.0/16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and 78.55.0.0/16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), both on the same ISP. Pretty large ranges to block, but the template has 160 transclusions, too many to quickly semiprotect. I'm not sure here. {{|template|checkuser needed}} can you please check the ranges for collateral? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding that I very strongly suspect this a certain registered editor, who used to be very enthusiastic at TfD but stopped editing when a number of problems with their participation there started to get raised. That's not socking by any measure (I don't think they've ever been blocked), but it certainly appears like they're finding the absence of scrutiny afforded by a dynamic IP very convenient. – Uanfala (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I wouldn't hard block them, but you could anon only for a while, and an account creation block wouldn't cause too much collateral damage either. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Uanfala is known for disturbing infobox clean-up, including trolling in discussions, e.g. at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 7#Template:Infobox Nepal district. He could explain his reverts, and e.g. explain his position at Template_talk:Infobox_India_district#Edit_warring. This is a content dispute. As clean-up is interrupted by Uanfala, a TfD has now been started: Wikipedia:Templates for_discussion/Log/2019 July 29#Template:Infobox India district. Additionally a user changed the protection settings without providing any reasoning, see Template talk:Infobox India_district#Template protection 78.55.29.138 (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

While there may be a content dispute about whether this particular infobox should be used - and MfD is a reasonable place to discuss it, preempting the results of a discussion by deleting uses is a behavioural issue - which are discussed here - does this issue come under the existing DS for infoboxes?Nigel Ish (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, can you point to a policy that prohibits replacing a little used template with a much more widely used template? Anyway, as said before it is now on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 29#Template:Infobox India district. 78.55.29.138 (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Uanfala against the mayority:
List of TfDs initiated by IP where Uanfala did show opposing interaction (not allways actually voting) - and no single resulted in keep (i.e. his position lost):

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 7#Infobox settlement wrappers - group TfD for 25 templates closed as no consensus, but each of the 22 that were put into a single TfD afterwards resulted in replace and delete
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 3#Template:Infobox South African municipality
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 6#Template:Infobox Finnish municipality
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 7#Template:Infobox Nepal district
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 15#Template:Infobox townlands
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 22#Template:Infobox Ukrainian raion
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 5#Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 6#Template:Infobox Palestine municipality

78.55.29.138 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC) // Strike + clarify 77.183.70.51 (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• @IP: please do not rapidly change your IP address if you are able to control it, it makes it very difficult to contact you. I realize that you may not have control over it, but if the only way we have to effectively get your attention is to block you, that's what we'll do. Also, you should presume that deprecation of widely-used templates will be controversial and start a discussion first to gauge consensus, rather than deciding for yourself on a course of action and boldly implementing it. Since you asked, the policy that prohibits such mass changes is WP:CONSENSUS.

Since becoming aware of this thread, the IP editor has stopped their mass-changes and has started a discussion at TFD, so I think we're done here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, thank you. I confirm that I read this, and will try to have less IP changes. I will also not replace in India nor anywhere else Infoboxes without TfD decision to do so. 78.55.29.138 (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

After TfD started and IP changes addressed

• Thank you, IP, for starting the TfD: that solves the immediate concerns. But could we also have an undertaking from you to abide by WP:CANVASSING? You were made aware of this guideline in last month's discussion of the Japanese prefecture infobox, but now I see that for the current TfD you again have notified only editors who are likely to agree with you. – Uanfala (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Uanfala please provide evidence for "but now I see that for the current TfD you again have notified only editors who are likely to agree with you" and show how abiding could have been violated. 77.11.201.49 (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Well, I was able to trace four notifications you've made: [8] [9] [10] [11]. It's not clear how you've selected 1 and 2; #3 who you claim you've notified as the "second contributor" to the template (why him among the dozen or so substantial contributors?) is known for his very strong opinion pro infobox merges; while #4 is the person who previously nominated a similar template for deletion. Also, it's probably not a good idea to ask individual admins to close your TfDs: even if the admin you normally ask weren't known to have a bias that can be seen as favourable to your proposals, it at least appears like you're trying to rush people (remember we're all volunteers here). And on an unrelated note, your habit of responding to people who disagree with you in TfDs with screens upon screens of graphs and lists of other templates is at best a form of WP:OTHERSTUFF; at worst, it can be seen as an attempt to derail the discussion and drown out opposition to your nominations. – Uanfala (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Uanfala, as can been seen above from the other discussions you posted text to, you lost it all. On the other hand my arguments in words explained with graphics, statistics, lists and tables have convinced users. Don't you want that deciders have the best information possible avaible to decide on the topic? On the topic of "attempt to derail", I am not an expert for that, when looking at your contributions to the TfDs listed above, where you never supported, you seem to be much better here: making TfD personal, unsubstantiated claims marked as "rant" by yourself, pointing to prior "no consensus" with purely promotional "extensively", to some extend misleading old TfD pointer as later explained, another "old TfD" pointer, supporting FUD, etc.

  Regarding the selection of notifications:

  1. WP:CANVASS prohibits "Spamming and excessive cross-posting" - so I only notified four.
  2. WP:CANVASS prohibits "Campaigning" - so I made all my message neutral.
  3. WP:CANVASS prohibits "Votestacking" - so I selected people not one the basis of prior votes in TfD.
  4. WP:CANVASS prohibits "Stealth canvassing" - so I publicly posted on the English Wikipedia user talk pages.

  Regarding asking admins to close - I want to improve the English Wikipedia better today than next year. It involves many steps, a delay in one step may seem irrelevant, but one day for each of 1000 steps is 1000 days delay. Regarding "remember we're all volunteers here" - I remember that this is not true, it has been revealed that paid editing exists. But surely you can explain in more detail why you posted that claim here. Regarding "it at least appears like you're trying to rush people", I am not an expert neither, was it you who created the headline above "Could someone quickly protect these pages please?" and rushed into reverting contributions by a volunteer without giving a reason [12] which in itself might be a violation of editing rules, instead of starting a content discussion per WP:BRD at the template talk? 77.11.201.49 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Just following up: when Uanfala first posted this thread I didn't realize this was the same IP editor who was badgering me earlier this month with demands to explain why I didn't see it as a problem that Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada existed ([13], [14]) which they helpfully reminded me of this morning by posting a wall of off-topic images and tables in the discussion ([15]) as a reply to my stale comment from two weeks ago. I suppose that makes me WP:INVOLVED so if there is admin action to take here, some other admin will have to take it. At least to the extent that the editor's IP is still rapidly changing despite my advice further up the thread, they don't appear to be making any other deliberate attempts to evade scrutiny or to appear to be multiple persons, although there's this, or else they're just doing a really poor job of it. The tendentious campaigning and sledgehammering of discussions is largely unhelpful bordering on disruptive, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, please read WP:ASPERSIONS. The diff you provided after your attack statement which they helpfully reminded me of this morning by posting a wall of off-topic images and tables in the discussion" is not from "this morning", nor is it "off-topic", nor does it contain any posting of an image. Re At least to the extent that the editor's IP is still rapidly changing despite my advice further up the thread - it does not really match, can you explicitely quote the claimed "advice" for anyone to see? Re The tendentious campaigning and sledgehammering of discussions - where did that happen? Do you want to censor discussions? 77.183.70.51 (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  The above reply is descriptive of the just-off-topic-enough-to-be-disruptive nitpicking from this editor. To wit:

  1. The diff you provided after your attack statement is not from "this morning" - the editor can see from the timestamp that I posted my comment at 17:09 UTC yesterday, which they may not have known (but should have checked my userpage to find out before criticizing) is 2:09pm in my time zone. At that time, their comment (timestamped 12:31 UTC, 9:31 Atlantic time) did arrive to me (along with its ping, and several more from other comments on various pages) that morning. The timestamps of the various comments is also completely irrelevant, and demanding an explanation for it is gaslighting.
  2. nor does it contain any posting of an image. This is true. It was not "an image", it was a gallery of fourteen images ([16]). These are not the only graphics they have added to the discussion.
  3. can you explicitely [sic] quote the claimed "advice" for anyone to see? No, I will not quote it. See diff.
  4. Re "The tendentious campaigning and sledgehammering of discussions" - where did that happen? All of the above, but also:
     • IP has replied to every single new comment in the discussion thread (except for one), often multiple times. In nearly every instance they also ping the editor they are replying to, sometimes (inadvertently by their own explanation) doing so twice by pinging them in their reply and again in their edit summary. (Admittedly this may be a bug)
     • Several of their replies have not been a substantive reply at all but only criticism of the commenter's choice of formatting, often with a veiled (or not-so-veiled) personal attack. ([17], [18], [19])
     • If a reply does not go in exactly the spot that the IP expects it, they criticize the poster and then repeatedly ping them to answer the comment again in their preferred location. ([20], [21])
     • If they don't get the answer they're looking for, they ignore the reply and simply restate the question. ([22] - in this instance they also moved Moxy's comment so that it appears to be a reply to the IP's question when in fact it was not; [23] - asking a repeat question days later when it was already answered)
     • Pinging an administrator they expect to be friendly to their cause. ([24])

  Thus, variously: WP:BLUDGEON, WP:DE, WP:TPO, WP:IDHT, WP:CANVASSING. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Reply - Using Template:Green for quotes, makes reading harder than Template:Tq - but I will just copy it from above, my comment comes after "---":

  1. just-off-topic-enough-to-be-disruptive nitpicking --- nitpicking, if I point out, that you make false claims about events?
  2. The diff you provided after your attack statement is not from "this morning" - the editor can see from the timestamp that I posted my comment at 17:09 UTC yesterday [...] --- You wrote "which they helpfully reminded me of this morning" - I didn't post "this morning" what your diff showed, the diff was from 27 July 19:52 UTC and your claim from 30 July 17:09 UTC. You edited on 28 and 29 July. It just doesn't fit.
  3. The timestamps of the various comments is also completely irrelevant, --- OK, then why did you start providing them?
  4. and demanding an explanation for it is gaslighting --- even if it is, nobody asked for such an explanation, at least no one I know of. Why do you put this into this list? WP:ASPERSIONS
  5. nor does it contain any posting of an image. This is true. It was not "an image", it was a gallery of fourteen images --- Not true: [25], you changed the diff, why?
  6. can you explicitely [sic] quote the claimed "advice" for anyone to see? No, I will not quote it. See diff. --- There is text starting with "Please", but I can see no advice of a type that you claimed.
  7. Re "The tendentious campaigning and sledgehammering of discussions" - where did that happen? All of the above --- WP:ASPERSIONS - where above is any evidence for "tendentious campaigning"?
  8. IP has replied to every single new comment in the discussion thread (except for one), often multiple times --- Not true.
  9. If a reply does not go in exactly the spot that the IP expects it, they criticize the poster and then repeatedly ping them to answer the comment again in their preferred location. ([26], [27]) --- Why did you put the two diffs in the wrong chronological order? Also, the other editor explicitly changed their post after I pointed out formatting issues.[28] He also mentioned "interweaving" and I addressed that, since it would not apply, as all the statements were seperately signed. Again, this is a problem of WP:ACCESS cf. wmf:Resolution:Nondiscrimination. If you think that is irrelevant, talk to the WMF. IMO every piece of text in any namespace on WMF-servers should be as accessible as possible.
  10. If they don't get the answer they're looking for, they ignore the reply and simply restate the question --- only sometimes and only if the question was not addressed.
  11. in this instance they also moved Moxy's comment so that it appears to be a reply to the IP's question when in fact it was not --- in fact the reply used "only" and "13" which was used in my "only 13 do?" and I had pinged Moxy.
  12. asking a repeat question days later when it was already answered --- three signatures in that diff, none from me, but two from you - did you mean to complain about yourself?
  13. Pinging an administrator they expect to be friendly to their cause. ([29]) --- WP:ASPERSIONS. The admin pinged is one of two that I know regularly close, the other is Primefac. I recently had asked Primefac, now this time I asked the other. I really don't care. "friendly to their cause" - that is what? Improve Wikipedia? I hope so!
  14. Thus, variously: WP:BLUDGEON, WP:DE, WP:TPO, WP:IDHT, WP:CANVASSING --- WP:ASPERSIONS - for each individual claim you should provide evidence.

  77.183.70.51 (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• The badgering is pretty bad, yes. Just look at the last couple of screens in the Canadian province TfD, with the latest gems in the series [30] [31] [32] [33]. Given that this is not one-off, but a persistent pattern throughout most of their TfD nominations, I think some action is necessary:
  Proposal. This editor is banned from replying in TfD discussions. They're allowed one comment per TfD discussion, subject to the exception that they may reply to a question explicitly addressed at them. – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Uanfala, you are known to have commented in several occasions against my TfD proposals, and in not a single of such cases the closing of the proposal resulted in Keep. Now you are campaigning against me on ANI and propose that my comments regarding templates and content be censored. Of the four diffs you provided three were related to editing - I usually don't make comments like these, because usually the editing style by the others isn't that disruptive. I know, some people assume blind users with screen readers don't exist, but there is even a wmf:Resolution:Nondiscrimination on that topic, cf. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot - Uanfala could start with applying "This editor is banned from replying in TfD discussions. They're allowed one comment per TfD discussion" to his own contributions to demonstrate how it works. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Just noting that after a side-discussion in the TfD about indenting in which the IP first made this connection to the accessibility policy, I invited them to continue the discussion on my talk page, as I am genuinely interested in how indenting either with or without a bullet is an issue for screen readers. As of this edit they have not accepted my invitation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  "invited them" - not even 24h have passed. Wao. ... It breaks the context, nothing more to say. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support proposal per my comments above, but I suggest it include a ban from discussions about infoboxes broadly construed, noting an exception for TfD nominations and replying to comments specifically addressed to them. The editor might have good points about some infoboxes but they are being a fanatic about it and disrupting consensus-building with their obsessive bludgeoning. It would be better if they made their point and moved on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Struck my alternative suggestion, it's too broad. Their input on infoboxes is useful, their behaviour in replies is not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, thank you for the struck. Regarding your campaign list above against me contributing to WP:INFOCOL, what about putting that effort into content and templates? Double-pinging - I told you already that I didn't know it happened, why do you bring it up again. Etc. Looks all like a smear campaign by you and Uanfala - both of you opposing my views re WP:INFOCOL. And why do you run all this under "Could someone quickly protect these pages please?" - TfDs are normally closed after 7~10 days. There are only few low-inclusion Infobox settlement wrappers left, so it all will soon be over anyway. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  This will be the third time I've asked today: stop pinging me. I have spent enough time replying to your repeat questions and accusations on multiple pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Where did you ever ask that? - Per WP:ASPERSIONS you should provide evidence. - I now don't ping you, because it is the first time I see such a request. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  More tendentious "I didn't see that" from this editor. Here are the three requests: [34], [35], [36]. Here are all the times you have pinged me since midnight Atlantic time: [37] (twice), [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], plus nine more pings earlier in the week. Enough now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  More tendentious "I didn't see that" from this editor. : WP:ASPERSIONS. Here are the three requests

  1. [44] - posted 14:22, 31 July 2019 - has no such request
  2. [45] - posted 17:27, 31 July 2019 - "I'm getting tired of being pinged to new pages by this editor." - Not sure how often that happened, but in that case Ivanvector unilaterly changed the protection settings 17:21, 29 July 2019, despite the topic having been discussed and addressed by another admin, shortly before [46], and thanked for by me [47] in a transparently named section "Template protection". Summary, not a request but a description "getting tired" ... @IP if you ping me on some new page again, I will ask someone to block you - I have not seen that, until "Where did you ever ask that? / 18:12, 31 July 2019", and it is also not a request but a conditional threat. Furthermore "if you ping me on some new page again" - I am not sure how "new page" and "again" are meant to be read, could allow a first ping from a new page, but not an again ping from such a new page. But it doesn't matter anymore, due to the 17:47, 31 July 2019 posted request not to ping at all.
  3. [48] - posted 17:47, 31 July 2019 - the request that contained the statement in question "This will be the third time I've asked today: stop pinging me." --- Not true - if the diffs provided show all places that could have such requests - it's only the first time.

  You made such a fuss and threats [see above] about IP changing, now I had the same IP for a long time - but you don't use the talk for such urgent (?) matter you get angry about if I don't see it within 79 minutes, because you post it on some template talk, despite it not being a template issue. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Problematic edits from 2.122.0.0/15 range

What seems to be a single IP editor is making continual race/ethnicity based edits, which seem to have a common agenda that seems to me to be unhelpful See User talk:2.122.14.215 for more on IP ranges. Is this editing pattern familiar to any other editors here? -- The Anome (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC))

• I looked at a bunch of edits from three of the listed IPs--I see unverified edits, but I don't see a consistent pattern of disruptive edits, yet. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jayjg that this sort of thing is definitely problematic [49]. If there are more in the same vein, IMO some sort of block would be justified even if their edits are interspersed with okay edits. In answer to the original question, I recall Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#126.209.22.197 problematic editing but I don't believe they had a UK focus and IIRC most of their edits were clearly problematic. And also completely different ISP and geolocation. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• The underlying pattern here is a belief that various "white" ethnicities (German, English, Scottish, Irish) are the only legitimate inhabitants of countries like England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands etc. and that any other ethnicities (particularly Jews) living in those countries are not legitimate citizens, but rather "guests", "alien" or "minorities" living in their "host" countries. Thus David Cesarani cannot be an English historian because he's a Jew[50][51] Jews and Roma can't be national minorities in Norway because only "white" groups like Kvens and Finns are.[52] There is no such thing as a "Dutch Jew" because a Jew can't really be Dutch; rather, they are "Jews in the Netherlands". In fact, Jews aren't legitimate citizens of European countries, but rather live in "host" countries (the latter is a common antisemitic claim and tell). And, of course, Jews can't be white. Jews are "alien" to England, while whites are "native" to Britain.[53][54][That's why they also consistently change "English" to "British" in articles (sometimes legitimately) - because, to them, "English" can only be an ethnicity. The rest of their edits, for the most part, assign people to various "white" ethnicities (e.g. Ulster Scots, Irish descentIrish descent) based, I assume, on their last names. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The header of this complaint refers to the 2.122.0.0/15 range, but that is very broad. A lot of people from the /15 range are not this guy. The only ones from 2.122.0.0/16 which clearly are him are Special:Contributions/2.122.14.27 and Special:Contributions/2.122.14.215. There is also Special:Contributions/2.123.76.175 but it's from a different /16. It is not obvious there is any good rangeblock to use. The cited thread at User talk:2.122.14.215 mentions a bunch of 2.123.*.* addresses but those edits aren't quite clear. A lot of people are prepared to revert between British and English. It's one of our most popular revert wars. The best way to deal with this editor could be some well-placed semiprotections. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The ones that are clearly him are Special:Contributions/2.122.12.145, Special:Contributions/2.122.13.87, Special:Contributions/2.122.14.27, Special:Contributions/2.122.14.215, Special:Contributions/2.122.15.203, Special:Contributions/2.123.75.123, Special:Contributions/2.123.76.175, Special:Contributions/2.123.83.24, Special:Contributions/2.123.108.184. They go back over two years, and they're not too hard to pick out. As you can also see, they cover a large number articles, so I'm doubtful semi-protection will help much. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Harrassment by an editor

I am starting this ANI because for some time now I have felt harrassed by another editor, @Tvx1. Things have recently come to a head and I feel that the time is nigh for some kind of administrator involvement. I would like to spell out the nature and extent of his behaviour and also provide what I think is an appropriate course of action. Before I begin, please note that I fully acknowledge that I am no angel in some of these situations, but based on my interactions with other users, I often feel that Tvx1 deliberately tries to instigate conflict.

The nature of my complaint

My complaint centres primarily on what I feel is Tvx1's abuse of the ANI procedure. He has, on several instances, taken me to task at ANI with the clear intention of having some kind of administrator interaction. Each of these usually follow some kind of ongoing debate on an article talk page where I have not yielded to him. Some of the diffs that I will be using for this will go back some time, but I believe that these demonstrate the full extent of his behaviour. Examples of this include:

• Directly lobbying to admins to review ANI cases involving me, particularly when he feels that they are not progressing fast enough or are not progressing to his liking.
• Digging up ANI archives that were over a year old and presenting them as evidence of current misbehaviour. When taken in isolation, some of these are questionable as to whether they are actually evidence of what Tvx1 claims them to be, but when combined with others, may have more weight.
• Selectively reporting who he reports to ANI. In this instance, I had reverted the edits of a user who I felt was being deliberately disruptive after they insisted that edits be made to other pages before the article in question. Tvx1 claimed to have used his judgement to decided that the editor had done nothing wrong, but refused to acknowledge that I could use my judgement to assess the situation.
• Trying to get me blocked for edit-warring on a high-traffic page which he had no prior involvement with (so he had to be monitoring my contributions); the admin closed the report because the page was high-traffic and so could not justifiably be called edit-warring. Tvx1 was not happy with this and appealed directly to the admin to try and re-open the ANI report after the admin had closed it without going through the ANI procedures.

During this time, other, uninvolved editors have pointed out his behaviour as he clearly wants me blocked. Tvx1 claims to be upholding Wikipedia policies and to be driven by a desire to act in the interests of the articles, but he rarely reports other editors to ANI even when there are issues clearly worthy of admin attention.

Tvx1 has a habit of misrepresenting things in discussions. During a recent (now closed) DRN, I pointed out the existence of a previous discussion (albeit eighteen months old) and an editor who had agreed with me on the subject. Tvx1, however, claimed that "all but one" editor in the most recent discussion had supported him. I felt that this was a blatant misrepresentation of the situation because Tvx1 repeatedly failed to acknowledge the existence of the previous discussion or the editor who had agreed with me, even after it had been pointed out. I felt that all he had to do was say something to the effect of "sorry, I forgot about that discussion because it is a bit old", but he pointedly refused to. I can think of no reason as to why he would do this unless he wanted to continue to claim that it was a one-against-many situation. This is but one example of what I feel is Tvx1's blatant attempts to misrepresent things.

Furthermore, Tvx1 has a disturbing habit of monitoring my contributions page. On several instances he has acted or responded to things that I have done even when I have taken pains not to involve him. This aforementioned ANI report was made based on edits to an article that Tvx1 had not previously been invovled with. When I approached @Fastily to discuss whether or not I had a case to discuss at ANI (as I noticed Fastily had previously commented on Tvx1's talk page about similar issues), Tvx1 approached @EdJohnston to comment on my approaching Fastily. I had taken pains not to tag Tvx1 in my comment to Fastily because I did not want him to be aware that I was discussing his behaviour with an admin (and also because I suspected that Tvx1 was monitoring my contributions page). Considering the post that made, I feel that he is trying to pre-emptively address this ANI by getting an admin on his side.

I have from time to time raised these issues, but mostly in the context of responding to ANI. I have never put them all together in the one place before. Tvx1's response has usually been to deny wrongdoing, claim that he is being targeted with bad-faith accusations, extensive wikilaywering and trying to shift the focus of the discussion to someone other than him, all of which are patterns of behaviour that can be found throughout his editing history. Given the content of his post on EdJohnston's talk page, where he claims that I have "painted a false image of [him]", and suggesting that an administrator I approached for advice "unfortunately apparently still has an overly negative impression of me [...] judging by their replies seems to fully believe it", I expect a similar defence from Tvx1 when he posts here. I stress that I had never heard of Fastily until I went looking for diffs from Tvx1's edit history for this ANI. I only approached Fastily because I noticed that he had previously blocked Tvx1 for reasons similar to my concerns (for example, I had never even heard of wikilawyering until I read Fastily's post).

What I propose as a solution

My solution to this is two-fold. First of all, I would like an interaction ban put in place. I am quite happy for this to be a two-way interaction ban; that is, I have nothing to do with Tvx1 and Tvx1 has nothing to do with me. However, I am not willing to agree to a one-way interaction ban where I am banned from interacting with Tvx1 as Tvx1 is the editor who has been harrassing me.

Secondly, I would like to suggest a topic ban or at least an article ban. Looking at Tvx1's contributions reveals an unusual pattern. Like many editors, he has many topics that he is interested in. For example, Formula 1 racing the UEFA Europa League, and tennis. And as with editors with many interests, he often edits many pages within the scope of that interest. In addition to the Wimbeldon article, he has edited pages on Roger Federer, Simona Halep and the US Open, among others. And this is where the unusual pattern emerges—his contributions to rallying articles are much more limited. So limited, in fact, that he only edits one part of one article (such as 2019 World Rally Championship) at a time. He does not contribute any content. He does not correct errors on the page. He does not contribute to any related articles (such as drivers, teams, cars or events). His only focus when it comes to rallying articles is World Rally Championship season articles is specific sections of the current season article—usually forming and implementing a consensus. And the one thing that he has in common with each of those consensus discussions is that he opposes me in them. Tvx1 is well aware that I have a vision for these articles. A lot of the conventions of those articles are conventions that I developed, and I am quite proud of them; I also have more ideas that I would like to implement. I am certainly not claiming to own these articles, merely highlight that I have a heightened interest in them (see for instance Volkswagen Polo R WRC, which I got to GA status almost single-handedly). Based no his edit history and his unusual pattern of editing on WRC season pages, I believe that his actions constitute a further form of harrassment, deliberately trying to prevent me from forming a consensus. It is worth noting that his attitude in these discussions is hardly productive; whatever points that he raises are offset by his dismissive attitude, claiming that my concerns are "all in my head". Forming a consensus with Tvx1 often amounts to two sides emerging very quickly, then retreating to their respective corners and repeating their arguments over and over again ad infinitum until one side gives up and Tvx1 gets a consensus by forefeit. If one person should persuade another to change their mind, Tvx1 interprets that as being unreliable and therefore marginalises them. Once he feels that he has enough support, I feel that he shuts down entirely, waiting for the other side to give up because he does not need to address issues so long as he has the numbers. He turns the discussion into a battleground and I know of several editors who have quit Formula 1 articles in frustration. When he does not get his way, he finds a reason to go to ANI and report me. To his credit his most recent contribution to a discussion is actually a very good one because it addresses specific concerns, offers points for further discussion and it something that newcomers to the conversation can engage in.

Therefore, in addition to an IBAN, I would like to suggest that Tvx1 be banned from editing articles on the topic of rallying, or at the very least banned from editing WRC season articles until such time as he can demonstrate a sustained commitment to editing rallying-related articles in the way he does Formula 1, UEFA Europa League and tennis articles. If Tvx1 has an equivalent article or topic that he would like me to be banned from editing, then I am quite happy to negotiate that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I cannot reply which much more to these accusations than that Mclarenfan17 ((who originally contributed to Wikipedia as Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and in between changing accounts as an IP) has massively overreacted to what really is a minor issue. The basic facts are that we disagree on content. On the article in question I made exactly two edits to the article in question over the last week. I made the first one in good faith when I felt the discussion had run its course and there was a clear support for the proposal. This was escalated to DRN which was not used by Mclarenfan17 to discuss the content, like that venue request, but merely to criticize my contributions. They even tried to game the system by approaching the DRN volunteer directly to try to poison them against me. The DRN volunteer Robert McClenon subsequently closed the DRN thread. I then made the second edit to the article in good faith because I felt the DRN had closed without new agreement with Mclarenfan17. Following that I left the article alone and focussed solely on the article's talk page. Following that, Mclarenfan17 approached the specific administrator (an action I find particularly concerning) of whom they clearly know I was recently indef blocked by, and with whom I unfortunately have a very poor reputation which I seem unable to shed, and escalated this to ANI here.

I fully believe this is an unnecessary overreaction. I fully believe that we can still find an amicable conclusion to this. They accuse me of misrepresenting the situation by refusing to acknowledge that an older discussion on the topic exists. That is simply not true. I referenced it here (I do apologize for the strong words I used there) in the discussion on Robert McClenon's talk page and addressed it again on the article's talk page. Mclarenfan17 and I merely disagree on the effect the older discussion has as whole. They consider it leading and I strong reason that there is little merit in discussing the subject any further, I felt that the second discussion was a fresh start under the principle that consensus can change. The actually impact lies probably somewhere in the middle. That is an issue that could perfectly have been resolved though at WP:DRN. Thus is strongly believe that we can resolve this content dispute to mutual satisfaction. There a couple of options we haven't even considered (e.g. RFC) but it is even possible that this can be resolved by something as simple as asking an uninvolved person to come to assess the discussion.

Therefore I fully believe that we can still resolve this content dispute collaboratively and that this does not need to be escalated to a IBAN and or topic ban. I would be very difficult for me to agree to a two-way IBAN because that would effectively lock me out of the topics I most actively contribute to. I would have no problem to respect a topic ban on rallying if that is deemed really necessary, but in that case I would suggest Mclarenfan17 is subjected to a topic ban on Formula One and its feeder series broadly construed. My greatest concern though is that even if I am subjected to the proposed restrictions regarding rallying, it would only affect this case directly but would not solve the greater problems at that WikiProject. The thing is, I'm not by far the only person McLarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys has clashed heads with over a content dispute at WT:Rally. Other users like Klõps[55][56], Pelmeen10[57][58], Pyrope [59] among others. Two of those users have even been reported at ANI by Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys:12. Thus it clearly doesn't take me at all for a rather hostile discussion involving Prisonermonkeys/Mclarenfan17 to emerge regarding rallying.

I cannot stress enough that I hold no personal grudge whatsoever against this user. Over my over six and a halve years history I have actually agreed with this user just as much as I disagreed with them. If they genuinely felt harassed, I sincerely apologize for that as I had not intentions whatsoever in that direction. I sincerely believe that we can resolve the content dispute at hand in an amicable manner.Tvx1 15:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is precisely the kind of response that I was expecting from Tvx1. His strategy is obvious: deny any wrongdoing, and try to turn the admin attention back on me. He claims that this is an over-reaction on my part and the product of a single recent disagreement despite the fact that I have been dealing with this behaviour for years. He then drags as many unrelated editors into the discussion as possible. This issue has nothing to do with any other editor but him and myself; tagging the other editors is merely a tactic for distraction and hoping that they will advocate for him. It doesn't matter what other editors think of Tvx1 because they're not being harrassed. He won't even accept responsibility for his actions—he says "if they genuinely felt harrassed", which is both conditional ("if") and clearly implies a lack of sincerity ("genuinely"). Despite claiming to have done nothing wrong, his counter-proposal of "a topic ban on Formula One and its feeder series broadly construed" is yet another example of harrassing behaviour, since Tvx1 does not edit Formula 1 feeder series articles (such as F2 2019 and F3 2019). There is no reason for me to be blocked from editing those articles. A TBAN on Formula 1 articles is disproportionate to the TBAN or ABAN that I am suggesting (I would be banned from editing thousands of articles whereas Tvx1 would be banned from editing hundreds); a TBAN on F1, F2 and F3 is completely ridiculous. As for his suggestion of two weeks, I was thinking more along the lines of two months. Or two years. Or better yet, forever.

As I said in my introduction, this is not the first time I have complained about Tvx1's behaviour—it's just the first time I have brought those complaints together into one place. His pattern of behaviour is ongoing, and he has previously been blocked and warned about this behaviour by admins for incidents unrelated to me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have not mentioned any time-frame regarding the proposed bans im my comment.Tvx1 21:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. I did write it at three in the morning, though. Still, I would prefer it if the IBAN and/or ABAN/TBAN was for am extended period. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment My views on based on rallying/WRC articles only. As I'm not familiar with others. Basically we have only 4 active editors in that subject, 2 of them involved in this discussion. Don't ban/block Why? Because Mclarenfan17 himself is very hard (childish) person to discuss something. Afaik, he has never (or rarely) had an intention to achieve a consensus, rather than talk and repeat his first opinion. Some discussions are just wasting everybody's time, when everybody has already expressed their opinion and one user singlehandedly is blocking a consensus (which he sometimes accuses of others). I'm not assuming bad faith, very happy for his enthusiasm. But sometimes feel he lacks empathy - not a person who is up for a teamwork (which Wikipedia is all about!). And worst of all, Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys (or IP editor in between) is very eager to jump into editwarring, when things are not to his liking. Everybody can check the histories of 2019 World Rally Championship, 2018 World Rally Championship etc. But with Tvx1, I've never had any problems. I feel he is much more of a teamwork person. He takes more time to discuss, and often expresses things to McLarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys that I'm not able (my English vocabulary is just not that good). Anyway, this ban/block seems ridiculous proposal - just discuss and move on. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have no idea why you are in this discussion. It has nothing to do with you, and Tvx1 only tagged you to deflect attention away from himself. If you haven't had a problem with him, that's fine, but just wait until you have a disagreement with him. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Walls of text are not likely to get action, from experience. 2001:4898:80E8:8:A2A8:1492:2DE5:4C33 (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment / Oppose ban - I can see both sides of this. On one hand, I don’t think that User:Tvx1 has deliberately attempted to antagonize the McLarenfan. I think that both users are operating in good faith and have made good contributions to the project. However, I found it somewhat disturbing that User:Tvx1 deliberately interrupted a private conversation between McLarenfan and the DRN volunteer Robert McClenon and literally ASKED to be reported to WP:ANI. In my opinion, this was poor judgment at best (see WP:BOOMERANG).

See diff:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&diff=next&oldid=907923878

I don’t think that a topic ban for both would be fair though — for one, it would mean that eminently qualified and constructive users would lose the ability to contribute meaningfully to an underserved topics. It would be especially tragic to lose the contributions of User:Mclarenfan17, who had added a lot to the topic and has single handedly improved multiple articles in this area.

My preferred resolution is that both users submit themselves to community sanctions in be areas of civility, and mutual respect, and discussions, including a voluntary adherence to the 1RR and a commitment to work with a mediator for any future content disputes. The interaction ban should exclude talk pages for articles, but they should also commit to avoid provoking or baiting each other as was done during the DRN.

This would be a mature and respectful way to close out this dispute and create a path forward for a harmonious resolution. Thoughts? Michepman (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Michepman, I’m willing commit to your proposals.Tvx1 21:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Michepman — I am afraid that does not go far enough. Tvx1 has been repeatedly warned about and even indefinitely banned for this kind of behaviour (before talking his way out of it) in the recent past. One admin even suggested a limit on how much of the admins' time he should be allowed to take up. When filing ANI reports, he often insists that the subject (me) should be held accoubtable for their behaviour, but here he is refusing to accept responsibility. As you pointed out, he interrupted a private converastion (which he should have had no idea about unless he was monitoring my contributions) and asked for an ANI to be started; then, once that ANI was started, he tried to use that same conversation he interrupted as proof of my doing something wrong, all while trying to claim that he was innocent. Meanwhile, he had discovered another private conversation of mine and approached another admin separately about it, which arguably poisons the well, the very thing he accused me of doing. It's harrassment, it's mistepresentation and it's wikilawyering, the very things he was blocked for. His "[willingness] to commit to your proposals" means nothing when he cannot even acknowledge his own behaviour and instead makes his apology conditional while implying my feeling of bring harrassed to be an overreaction on my part.

Given the warnings and ban he has received and his insistence that editors be held accountable for their actions, a one-way IBAN and an ABAN or TBAN would be getting off lightly, in my opinion. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I haven't had time to review the content or the details of the conduct, due to a combination of real-world problems and other Wikipedia issues. I will say that I found both parties to be bellicose, and both wanted to treat a conduct-content dispute as a conduct dispute. Neither of them was trying to settle the matter peacefully, and neither was trying to be constructive at DRN. There is a content dispute waiting to get out from the conduct dispute, but it is likely to be stillborn due to birth injuries in getting it out. Both parties have behaved badly, and the sanctions should be two-sided. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon — in that case, could I please ask that you do read the entire post? You will see that the DRN only constitutes a tiny fraction of my complaint against Tvx1. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Robert McClenon, I have no problem to admit that I did not behave in the best way during that DRN and I didn't really help the situation. I apologize for that. I do maintain however that I'm fully convinced that we can resolve the content dispute. The content disagreements we have are entirely of the kind that we should be able to resolve through a DRN process. I made a comment during the failed DRN to iterate that I was fully willing to continue discussing the content. I did not intend for that comment to mean that I didn't want to participate any further at all, but simply as a request for the comments against the contributors to stop. If it came across differently, I apologize for that.Tvx1 15:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It appears that one editor, User:Tvx1, apologizes for their past conduct and is willing to discuss content. The other, User:Mclarenfan17, wants me to read their Too long to read statement first. I won't be working on this dispute anyway, but I don't think that another volunteer is likely to be able to resolve the content as it is, with one editor demanding that conduct be addressed. I don't plan to be involved further. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"I do maintain however that I'm fully convinced that we can resolve the content dispute."

It's quite clear that you are trying to frame this ANI as a response to the DRN. The fact that you have only addressed the DRN and ignored everything else—the harrassment, the wikilawyering, the misrepresentation, the way you monitor user contributions and interrupt private conversations, the abuse of ANI to settle grudges, the BATTLEGROUND behaviour, the warning and previous block for such behaviour—is yet another case of misrepresentation as you try to avoid being held accountable for your behaviour ... and yet, every time you go to ANI, you insist that you just want people to be held accountable for their behaviour.

"It appears that one editor, User:Tvx1, apologizes for their past conduct

And he was apologetic when he was blocked for a similar pattern of behaviour one month ago.

"The other, User:Mclarenfan17, wants me to read their Too long to read statement first."

I'm sorry if it's inconvenient for you, but I felt it necessary to document as sustained pattern of misconduct, one that has been going on for at least eighteen months now. As I said, Tvx1's behaviour in the DRN only represents a small fraction of my complaint. I hardly think it's fair that you should take one editor's word for it that he is sincere when you refuse to even look at the post demonstrating the litany of behaviours being discussed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

What private conversation? On my talk page? You did not ask for privacy, I did not agree to privacy, and you were out of line in trying to have a side conversation. If you had wanted privacy, Email This User works. You do have a right to ask that someone read your wall of text, but you have no reason to expect that I will read your complaint. I didn't say that he was sincere. I said that he apologized and you didn't. He may be wrong, but you are wrong. That is that. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

"I didn't say that he was sincere. I said that he apologized and you didn't. He may be wrong, but you are wrong. That is that."

Well, I guess I should have read your post. But I didn't because it was too long. Instead, I just assumed that I knew what it was about and leaped into the fray and started swinging an opinion about with reckless abandon. Is it any wonder that I ended up stabbing myself in the foot? That feeling of annoyance you have is exactly what I felt when you said "tl;dr"—internet-speak for "I couldn't be bothered"—but still saw fit to pass an opinion on it.

Sure, Tvx1 apologises for his past behaviour, but so what? He's apologised in the past, only to turn around and keep doing the very thing he just apologised for. He only apologised for his behaviour in the DRN when this ANI is about so much more than that. It's about:

• His habit of using ANI to try and get people he disagrees with blocked.
• His harrassing behaviour, including monitoring the contributions of editors for the purposes of opposing them.
• His tendency to misrepresent things (including policy) in consensus debates and ANI proceedings.
• His edit history, which shows a clear personal agenda to his pattern of edits that is not in the interests of the article.
• His hipocricy in claiming he only wants editors to be held accountable for their behaviour, all while refusing to acknowledge (much less address) his own behaviour.

Should a simple apology and promise to try harder in future be enough to excuse that? Given that he has been warned about it, blocked for it and other editors have called him out over it, I don't think an apology goes far enough. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems you are trying to make yourself the victim here. Though several people mentioned the actions should be towards both of you. Your previous account has been blocked several times for edit warring. Tvx1 has apologized and understood what he has done wrong. What about you? Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't abuse ANI to punish people I agree with. I don't monitor the contributions of other editors. I don't mistepresent people, policy or topics. I don't let a personal agenda influence my editing behaviour. And I'm not a hypocrite, demanding people be held accountable for their behaviour whilst dodging accountability for my own. Even if I did, an apology would not be enough to make up for it—and it should not be enough for Tvx1. This is all moot, though, because he has only apologised for his behaviour in the DRN; he hasn't even acknowledged the rest of it. He deserves an outright block for his actions, but I'll settle for an IBAN and a TBAN or ABAN. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and harrassment by User:Knoxinbox

Knoxinbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is single purpose account has a long history of making disruptive edits to the page International Relief and Development Inc. that whitewash or significantly downplay the company's history of fraud, waste, and abuse. User initially added copyrighted materials (I can't provide diffs, because most of the edits have since been hidden) in an effort to spam the page with content and dilute balanced prose. User then sought to delete content about why the institution renamed itself. More recent attempts have been to add puffery to the page and characterize the organization as a non-profit. User seems eager to revert important contributions, such as organizational improvements to the page. Request sanctions against the user and page protection to International Relief and Development Inc. for extended users. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I am user knoxinbox. I confess that I am not a regular wikipedia editor and this is the first article I have attempted to edit. If I am not following best practices on wikipedia editing I apologize and am happy to revise the content I have added to better conform to accepted standards. I am also struggling to learn your tagging and formatting rules, but that is besides the point. I am not, nor have I ever been an employee of the above mentioned organization, however I had several good friends that were, which is why I am interested in it, and international development in general. The organization has a complex history and it has evolved significantly over the years.

This page is not well known and over the years besides Bangabandhu and myself, only a couple of other persons have tried to edit it. Bangabandhu holds a very critical view of the organization, often making unsubstantiated statements such as the above "company's history of fraud, waste, and abuse". It is true the organization was being investigated for about a year, but this is common in the International NGO world, and there were no findings of wrongdoing.

Bangabandhu has been very hostile towards myself and other editors who have attempted to enrich the article with content not related to scandals. Bangabandhu has frequently removed content without explanation, and at other times twisted the interpretation of the source material to sound more critical than it was. The user insists that the scandal of 2015 be the foremost (and only) thing people know about this organization. I have a wealth of other material, from high quality sources, that I am attempting to add to the page but Bangabandhu reverts my edits within minutes. It has been very frustrating. I would like Wikipedia administrators to advise on how to proceed. -Knoxinbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'll add that the page has long been the target of single purpose accounts. Perhaps these are the "friends" to which Knoxinbox refers? Impartial, experienced editors who have visited the page did not see any reason to take issue with the content. Bangabandhu (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You and I are the only people editing this page. It's an obscure subject that few know about. I am not a regular wikipedia editor, whereas you are. You have seniority in terms of wikipedia activity, but you are not a subject matter expert. All content you have posted so far has been related to the 2015 investigation and suspension - though you conveniently forgot to mention that the suspension was overturned that same year. I had to come along and add that (you subsequently buried it deep in the operations section).

You say everyone (except you) is biased. I say you have shown yourself through your own statements on the talk page to be very biased, and have made a toxic environment for the rest of us who are trying this for the first time. But without other stakeholders unfortunately it is my word against yours. My goal is to continue to enrich the page with material from varied sources that spans the entire life of the organization from 1999 to today. Good or bad.

And I still strongly believe that information on individuals, particularly salary information was put on the page by you, with malicious intent to publicly shame them. It doesn't belong on wikipedia and should be removed. -Knoxinbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject matter expertise is irrelevant. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources. The fraud, waste, and abuse has been extensively chronicled in reliable sources, including the Washington Post. There have been many efforts by other impartial editors to remove self-promotion and puffery. For example, see the "advert" tag that was appended in the 17:27, 4 September 2015‎ edit - I can't link to it, as the content was expunged when other editors removed promotional material that was copied verbatim from the organization's website. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

When making a report at ANI, you need to notify the user your reporting by leaving a message on their talk page as stated in red letters near the top of ANI. I have already notified the user in question via their TP. AryaTargaryen (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

Thanks for letting me know, this is the first time that I've seen a situation that required this intervention. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring to introduce honorifics at multiple school articles

• Cobb County School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)‎
• Lassiter High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pebblebrook High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alan C. Pope High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• George Walton Comprehensive High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cobb Virtual Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been explained to each IP. Before they can accrue enough warnings to be blocked, the user then returns with a new IP to resume same. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC) ‎

They probably aren't deliberately changing their IP, and it's possible they've never seen the warnings. This behavior actually extends far beyond these articles, though. Some of the edits are coming from the residential subnet 2601:CD:C101:5870:0:0:0:0/64, which I've blocked for 1 year for disruptive editing. Other edits are coming from Verizon wireless, and blocking him from that range cannot be done without substantial collateral, so I haven't touched it for now, but I'm not necessarily opposed to it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, and thank you. Your point re:deliberate change of IPs is well taken, as that happens to me, based on this flimsy rural connection. Use your own best judgment as far as the Verizon based edits. Thanks again, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This happens nearly every year about this time on the Cobb County high schools. It's trolling plain and simple. Just deploy whatever parts of WP:RBI you can use and move on. John from Idegon (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALLING and WP:IDONTHEARYOU by User:Paul Siebert at Talk:Pontius Pilate

Paul Siebert has been engaged in a protacted and disruptive discussion at Talk:Pontius Pilate#Recent Changes as well as at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PhD thesis in Theology a reliable source for the claim about authenticity of Tacitus fragment? to advance the fringe Jesus myth theory. Despite repeatedly being told that he is advancing a fringe theory by everyone else involved and being asked to stop, Paul Siebert continues to WP:STONEWALL and dismiss mainstream scholarship as "Christian" (see e.g. [[60]]). He has now at least twice said he would stop discussing/announced an end to the discussion [61] [62], and yet continues to post making the exact same arguments [63], [64], [65]. He has also already been given a warning by User:Doug Weller, to which he has responded with wikilawyering: [66], [67], [68]. He is currently threatening to rewrite all our Jesus/Christianity related articles on the basis of his own personal POV, as can be seen from the various diffs above. I suspect he will soon be making the same arguments over here as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I would also add that he accuses other people of being Christian, and spreading "religious propaganda". To anybody clicking on the links above, there is a huge wall of text, you've been warned (lol). T8612 (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a diff on at least one of the religious propaganda accusations he's made [69].--Ermenrich (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Below are the comments on each accusation separately.

• "Paul Siebert has been engaged in a protacted and disruptive discussion." False. I already proposed to stop this discussion and Ermenrich is aware of that fact. That means no admin action is needed, because the actions are supposed to be preventive not punitive.
• "...as well as at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PhD thesis in Theology a reliable source for the claim about authenticity of Tacitus fragment?". Is anything wrong with asking a question at RSN???
• "...to advance the fringe Jesus myth theory. The fact that the current version of the article calls it fringe does not make it fringe. I am going to collect more data on that account, and then I'll decide if that article needs a major rewrite.
• "...continues to post making the exact same arguments." That is an important point. Ermenrich claims I am not familiar with sources and my sources are fringe. Ermenrich presented three sources to support that claim. I provided the analysis demonstrating that all those sources fully support what I am saying, and one of them is even citing my source (which refuted Ermenrich's allegation I am using fringe sources). This diff is a summary of the dispute (read ## 1-3). Ermenrich does not respond to this argument and continues the allegations of pushing fringe theories. Obviously, I am expecting to see a response, so it is normal that I am asking it again. I have to say I have never had such a low level talk page discussion during my wikilife.
• "He has also already been given a warning by User:Doug Weller" - I believe User:Doug Weller can voice their opinion themselves if they believe there are still some unresolved problems.
• "wikilawyering" Again, let User:Doug Weller comment on that.
• "He is currently threatening to rewrite all our Jesus/Christianity related articles..." Since Ermenrich seems to have forgotten to attach the diff, here it is. As you can see I express a legitimate concern that some sources may be incorrectly interpreted in Christianity related articles, so I need to read them more closely and make changes if necessary. If that activity is punishable according to our policy, then Wikipedia is not the place I want to be :). Ermenrich's "our Jesus/Christianity related articles" is especially interesting: should I interpret it as a collective ownership claim?
• "... accuses other people of being Christian". Being Christian is not a crime, so I don't see how can it be interpreted as an accusation.
• "religious propaganda" Is Wikipedia a secular encyclopedia, and can religious ideas be presented (as a statement of facts, not as a subject of discussion) outside of the articles specifically devoted to that?

In summary, I think this report is frivolous. I don't insist on WP:BOOMERANG, however, a warning should be issued to Ermenrich.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think many editors would agree that challenging (RS or DUEness) theology studies sources (of any religion - including Christian) being used for sourcing the historicity of religious figures... Is sound editing.Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz, The issue is not that he asked, but that it was part his WP:OR strategy to use the Tacitus passage's disputed status to argue that Jesus didn't exist- never providing a source that said that one depended on the other.

in fact, he was challenging its use in the article talk page rather than in the article, on the mistaken impression I was arguing with him about it.Ermenrich (talk)

The source saying that has been provided ... by you. See a statement in bold ("The only source for this event is a brief passage in the historian Tacitus.") --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You linked to it in your first post [70], clearly without knowing what was in it. He's been doing this a lot, I think it probably counts as WP:GASLIGHTING.

Ah, misinterpreted what he said. The source says that the only source for the Neronian persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome is this passage in Tacitus, it says nothing about the existence of Jesus. But that's really neither here nor there. It's a pretty good example of his use of WP:OR though; he's using sources on Tacitus to make his own conclusion that Jesus didn't exist.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Had you answered this my question two days ago, we would probably avoided this incident. I've read your source in full, and I agree that you were right regarding Nero and Christians; however, since you provided this source as a support for the claim about historicity of Jesus, I thought the author was talking both about Christians and Jesus. Anyway, this your source does not support your thesis, because it clearly says Tacitus wrote this passage based on rumors about Christ that already had wide circulation in 110-120. Tacitus was wrong even about Rome fire (which happened in Rome 30 years after Jesus alleged death), and it is highly unlikely he had any first hand account on the events in Judea in 33 AD. However, all of that hardly belongs to ANI.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Look who's still not participating in this discussion! As I've said elsewhere, only you were arguing about whether Tacitus supported the historicity of Jesus. I simply quoted the source that you (again [71]) introduced into the discussion for how we should organize the article not to discuss "Christian mythology" to show that it didn't support your opinion and it happened to mention Tacitus.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You are right, this source was initially proposed by me. I think now you realise how important is to explain your point of view: had you pointed at this my mistake earlier, that would save a lot of time. Anyway, two other sources still exist, and they were found not by me. Regarding Tacitus as the only source, listen, it is a common knowledge that Tacitus and Josephus are the two sources the whole concept of historicity of Jesus rests upon. What do your sources tell about other early non-Christian sources? Can you name at least one?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"Being Christian is not a crime, so I don't see how can it be interpreted as an accusation."

This is this either demonstrates an incredibly poor understanding of the English language, an attempt at gaslighting or a mockery their fellow editors. Claiming an editor holds a faith which they do not in an attempt to discredit their opinions is incredibly offensive and bad faith, and in that it is an accusation as used as a layman term.★Trekker (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. Doesn't holding a faith that Jesus really existed mean being a Christian? I write "faith" because it is based on just two small passages from Josephus and Tacitus, which are widely recognised anachronisms or later additions. No other evidences (if we do not consider the Gospels reliable) prove Jesus existence, so we have absolutely no ground to claim Jesus ever existed. Therefore, everybody who believes Jesus (the God or just a human) really existed is, to some degree, a Christian.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No. You have to believe in the divinity of Jesus. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. But I think you agree that if the discussion moves to the question on who can be considered Christian, it definitely does not belong to ANI?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not remotly a "maybe". Muslims also belive Jesus existed but not that he was devine.★Trekker (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been vaguely watching this discussion balloon from afar: one note in re Paul Siebert has been engaged in a protacted and disruptive discussion: since his starting the discussion here to the time of my writing here, more than 70,000 bytes have been added to the page by all parties, including by my count 82 edits by Paul Siebert totaling a net +18,286 bytes. A couple of thousand bytes were after the edit Paul points to above as I already proposed to stop this discussion [72]. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I also note that Paul Siebert takes Errmenrich to task for using the phrase "our articles", suggesting that it's a form of ownership, and yet in the same comment uses the phrase "our policy". Clearly he understands the idiomatic use of "our" meaning "Wikipedia's", as he uses it himself! Not impressive. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"A couple of thousand bytes" is a different discussion with another user who claims we have no reason to speak about WP:OWN.

Regarding "our", although I have already been accused of poor understanding of the English language, I believe I can feel a difference between the statement "he is going to change our articles" (which implies some contraposition) and "our (i.e. both yours and mine) policy says..." (which has no such implications).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No there really isn't any difference unless you're really trying to find one very hard to try to justify what you're doing.★Trekker (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Considering I've never edited any of the Jesus articles, historical or otherwise, that's a pretty weak argument.

I'd also like to note that Paul used this same tactic of claiming to have stopped discussing one thing but continuing to argue "about something else" before in the discussion [73].--Ermenrich (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is a big difference between you Ermenrich and me. You have reported me and request some action - I do not. And, by the way. I see no problem with stopping one discussion and starting another one: is it really not allowed by our rules? Please, don't make this report even more frivolous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

And here you are, continuing to discuss something else again I suppose?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there any rule that prohibit me to discuss something else?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the discussion has come to a logical end, and I am not going to participate in it unless you present something outstanding (which is hardly possible).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What exacty about this looks like an "end" here?★Trekker (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"The end" means there is nothing here that belongs to ANI (except, probably, the fact that the report is frivolous). Good luck. If you have other questions, please, post them on my talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well once again you're wrong. About pretty much everything on topic.★Trekker (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• As noted above, Paul Siebert was given a final warning by Doug Weller, and has nonetheless continued with IDHT, bludgeoning, and making bad faith accusations of being "Christian" to editors, which (a) is not really a valid Conflict of Interest if the sources are followed, and (b) is based on poor logic, since the existence of the historical Jesus is generally not controversial amongst historians of any faith. You need to learn to work with your fellow editors, stop trying to insert your own interpretation of sources to get different results from mainstream historians, and also accept consensus, otherwise sanctions will follow.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You are inaccurate. Doug Weller explicitly specified his warning was not a final warning. Second, regarding "continued with IDHT", you should have noticed that even before Doug's interference I realised continuation of of the discussion was senseless (at least, until I read more), and I am just commenting on what other people say. Thus, a recent exchange with Ermenrich on this talk page or with Treker are responses to their posts.

Third, calling anyone "Christian" is by no mean accusation, although it may be inaccurate. Regarding "sources are followed", there is a question of due weight: my opponents dismiss my sources (without providing any evidences), whereas I accept their sources, just propose to re-organise the article's structure for a sake of logical consistency.

"stop trying to insert your own interpretation of sources". Our WP:NFCC rules do not allow us to copy large pieces from sources, so we all have to insert our own interpretations. In that sense, I see no difference between me and other users. To blame me in inserting my interpretation of sources is tantamount to blaming me in editing Wikipedia. If my interpretation is wrong, prove it by presenting quotes and arguments.

Again, consensus is not a vote: when people say "you are not right, because the source you are citing is fringe (according to ref X)", or "you are not right because the source actually says Y", I usually accept that. The problem is no such arguments were presented in this discussion.

I am editing a number of highly controversial articles, and I never faced so low level discussion before. Don't you think the problem may be on the other side?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that someone is of a faith they are not to try to diminish their opinin is insulting and an accusation. Stop trying to gaslight.★Trekker (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, Wikipedia is not a politecorrect place, and it is quite ok to make a guess about someone's faith. Per WP:DUCK, if someone's posts look like they were made by a Christian, it is natural to propose this person is a Christian. You may accuse me of insultin someone only if I knew in advance a person was not Christian. Nevertheless, I agree that was impolite; as impolite as calling me fringe theorist or POV-pusher. In future, I will avoid this type rhetoric, and I expect you to avoid yours. Ok?--Paul Siebert (talk)

This is laughable. If you think I'm a Christian you couldn't recognize an actual Christian if it bit you in the ass.★Trekker (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I doubt ANI is a good place for discussing that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong again. This is exactly the place to bring it up since your constant bad faith assumptions is one of the main reasons no one has sympathy for you. Do you honestly think this is going to lead anywhere but you getting told to knock it off?★Trekker (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please, provide a single rational argument. All what you are saying is not possible to discuss, you just say "I don't like your fringe theories", but you never explained why you believe they are fringe. When arguments are so irrational, that creates an impression (ok, a wrong impression) that I am dealing with a deeply indoctrinated religious person. Since you claimed you are not such a person, then behave accordingly: give me rational arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, we have to do a degree of interpretation, in selecting sources, but that's all the more reason why consensus, and following the findings of secondary/tertiary sources rather than primary ones, is so important in maintaining a neutral point of view. Your arguments are not neutral since they go against the mainstream scholarly view that Jesus was a historical figure. And nobody but you is arguing for that point of view. You could conside starting an RFC, or using some of the techniques suggested at WP:Dispute resolution, if you genuinely think there is some aspect of this that a wider audience might interpret different from the other editors in the discussion. But continuing to argue the same point over and over in different venues, and casting aspersions against other users by suggesting they have a faith-based conflict of interest, is an unacceptable way to continue the debate. I have struck the "final" part about Doug's warning, thanks for correcting me on that.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

First, the whole conflict lasts just a couple of days, so I just have no time to think about RfC or something of that kind. Second, the visibly high number of my opponents is deceptive: actually only few of them presented any addressable arguments. I believe you must agree that "You are totally wrong" or "stop POV-pushing" are not the arguments: usually, I expect to see something more serious. Maybe, my repeating questions were the attempt to force people to present something more concrete? I noticed Ermenrich started to explain their position more clearly (on this page), which is already a progress. I hope that will help us to find an exit from an impasse.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again you ignore one of the main issues, which is that each time someone made a claim you disagreed on you simply deflected by claiming that "only Christians think that". Which is bad faith to say the least.★Trekker (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"Each time?" Are you sure? In addition, let me remind you that the whole conflict started because you two accused me of pushing fringe theory, despite the fact that I was presenting top quality modern reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

There it is again, acting like you don't grasp figurative language. And no, this issue was started because you kept insisting on forcing fringe theories.★Trekker (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please, provide a single evidence (a quote from a reliable modern peer-reviewed scholarly source) saying the theory I am advocating is fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

We are under no more obligation to refute you here than if you claimed the moon landing was fake or the holocaust didn't happen. We've pointed you to sources several times by linking to Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth theory and you each time simply claim Christian bias and "religious propaganda". Every single person who has commented has said that it is mainstream among historians that Jesus existed.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

At first glance, this looks like a content dispute. But when I looked more closely, there is something very deeply disruptive going on. Paul Siebert argues that anyone who believes that some guy named Yeshua or something similar was an actual dissident Jewish teacher in and around Nazareth 2000 years ago is a Christian, whether or not they worship him, consider him divine, call him Messiah and Savior, or reject him. Even third generation atheists like *Treker who might possibly believe this guy really lived are actually Christians, in Paul's thinking. Even Jews who denounce him as a false Messiah are actually Christians, if they believe he really lived. All Muslims must be hidden Christians in Paul's analysis. So, Paul espouses a bizarre and highly idiosyncratic definition of who is or isn't a Christian. In order to claim to be "not Christian" in Siebert's worldview, a person must vigorously deny that Jesus ever existed. Siebert also argues that Christian sources are not reliable when when evaluating the historicity of Jesus. By redefining who is a Christian, Siebert's thinking leads to the logical conclusion that only those few fringe sources who vigorously deny that Jesus ever lived are acceptable in these articles. That's a highly disruptive line of thinking when it is advanced so tenaciously and at such great length. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cullen³²⁸ See my comment below: a reliable source I cite on the talk page directly says that many scholars who study Christ [share similar goals and perspectives with believers. Obviously, the same relates to the users who shares the views of those scholars. Therefore, my allegedly "bizarre" statement almost literally reproduces what a top quality reliable source says, which means it is properly sourced, and completely shatters your main argument. In general, the fact that I can work with sources and I do that very well is well documented: there is a publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal saying that the user Paul Siebert uses a very professional approaches to identification of reliable sources. You can read it yourself here.

Furthermore, it seems that as a result of the hot discussion the main idea appeared to be lost: I never proposed to remove any information from the articles about Christ, my proposal was that the non-Christian historical sources should be clearly separated from what the Gospels say (in the same way many books present this information). This quite modest proposal caused such a vehement reaction that I got an impression I am dealing with devoted Christians (and the article cited below reinforced this my belief).

I am not responsible for the ideas that I didn't express someone put in my mouths (to separate different type sources into different sections and to weed out some sources are two totally different ideas, aren't they?), and I expect you to carefully read the discussion in full before posting your opinion. A good analysis is provided by Lurking shadow below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Ermenrich That is absolutely not the case: you are not supposed to refute me, you are supposed to prove you are right. Redirecting me to other Wikipedia articles is a kind of disrespect ("I-am-too-lazy-to-bother-explainng-my-viewpoint-read-it-yourself"). Claiming that the sources I am presenting are fringe is even a worse disrespect, especially taking into account that the sources your own sources cite the article presented by me as a trustworthy and mainstream view. A normal argument should be built like "Your claim is fringe because the author X and the author Y say that. The authors Y&X are renown scholars because their works are widely cited and are published by ZZZ university press..." This type arguments are easy to address (either refute or accept), and I am sure that the discussion organized in this way wouldn't lead to any conflict. That is how discussions on other talk pages are organized, and that is what I expected here. I am very disappointed. Your support of my topic ban is the more disappointing. This does not worries me. I cannot imagine how can a community topic ban a user who made not a singe contoaversial edits to the articles that fall into this topic, and who made no personal attack, and who even had no opportunity to start any RfC or mediation due to the short time that passed since the moment the conflict started. What is worrying me is the fact that people who study Christ seem to approach to Christian with assumptions shared by the believers, and also share similar goals and perspectives with believers. As you can see from this link, this is not my conclusion, this is the opinion published by Sage journal Studies in Religion. That means if you share the view of these scholars than that relates to you yourself. That means, accusations in promotion of Christian propaganda is not a personal attack, it is the conclusion made based on what a top quality reliable source say. It is very sad that a group of users who are currently working on some Christianity related articles share this view. I am afraid by starting this discussion I unadvertely opened a can of worms that may require a global arbitration. However, I am still believing we may come to some consensus that will save our time and efforts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not try to tell me or other editors what we are supposed to do here, Paul Siebert, because I will always do what I believe is best for the encylopedia, and as an administrator and experienced editor, I have concluded that you should no longer be editing these articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You probably noticed the "ec" template: that my comment was directed not to you. I didn't see your post when I was typing. My next comment is the answer to your post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Im replying down here so we dont fracture into so many small threads. Paul, the basis for your proposal at the article is your fringe view that anyone who says Jesus existed is a Christian and therefore too biased to count. No one has agreed with you on either editing the article as you wanted or in your basic premise, but you have simply repeated yourself over and over again. You're doing it even now. As I dont think you will stop, in fact you've said you're going to "examine the sources", no doubt in the same way you've been "examining" them until now, and "decide" whether to rewrite other Jesus articles. Of course I support a topic ban.--Ermenrich (talk)

Absolutely not. My proposal was just to rearrange the article's structure without removal of any content. Regarding my alleged statement about someone's Christianity, as I already explained above, that is just an slight extension of the idea published is a highly reliable mainstream source (the reference is provided above, if you doubt the source is reliable and non-fringe, ask a question at RSN).

Therefore, if you disagree with that, you can direct your objections to the author of this article. Anyway, since the discussion about someone's alleged Christianity was not aimed to lead to any changes in the article's content, I sincerely cannot understand why we are discussing it here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:DE?

Since I have been accused of WP:DE, I've re-read that page to verify what is applicable to this case (not only to me). Below is my analysis:

WP:DAPE says that a user is engaged in DE when they

1. "...continues editing an article ..." I haven't edited this article for a very long time. Another party did (which is ok).
2. "... Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research." During the discussion I provided more sources than all other participants taken together. Another party failed to demonstrate that at least one my source is unsatisfactory.
3. "...Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging", etc" Not relevant to me, because I did no changes in the article space.
4. "Does not engage in consensus building:

"a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions..." I responded to virtually all questions (that is why the talk page discussion is that long. Another party did disregard my questions repeatedly.

"b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits." Don't know. Maybe someone can provide an example?

1. "Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment," Since the start of the conflict I initiated an RSN discussion. Another party made a post at Christianity portal, so both parties are ok.
2. "Campaign to drive away productive contributors:" I obviously didn't, and what we have here is an attempt of another party to drive me (a productive contributor) away.

My conclusion is that we are dealing with some elements of DE, but the party engaged in it was not me. I am also grateful to Lurking shadow for a thoughtful analysis of the conflict. It may be helpful in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:DE is by no means limited to article space. And you've cherry-picked sentences in the guideline while blatantly ignoring WP:IDHT. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I doubt IDHT is applicable to a discussion that lasted less than a week. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of moving houses and thus can't use my laptop to provide diffs, but its extremely disenguous of you to claim to have provided more sources than anyone else. As you were repeatedly told, the article content you wanted changed was sourced to RS and supported including the crucifixion in Pilate's life. You repeatedly dismissed these sources with accusations of Christian bias or misrepresenting Helen Bond as a theologian. You never produced a single source arguing the crucifixion wasn't a historical event in Pilate's life, you just argued about the off topic issue of whether Tacitus proves Jesus existed - at great length.--Ermenrich (talk)

We both were arguing about Tacitus, and that was not a topic I was going to discuss originally.

Regarding the number of sources, tust count the sources presented by you. I don't remember other participants presented anything significant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I was not arguing about Tacitus. I agreed that the section was likely a forgery, and that that was of little weight.★Trekker (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In general, I have a strong feeling that majority of the users who expressed their opinion built it not on what I wrote, but on what others wrote about me. Therefore, let me remind all of you that:

• In a separate post, I explained my position and explicitly wrote that the edits I propose do not imply any source will be removed, just rearranged to bring everything in system. I also specified that I object not to the content itself, but to the way it is presented.. Therefore, it would be correct if P Aculeius provided a diff that supports the claim" "he's not just arguing that the other editors are wrong, but that their opinions, all of the opinions of scholars who disagree with his position, and all of the evidence that weighs against his opinion are wrong, invalid, or inherently biased because they disagree." In addition, the P Aculeius's opinion seems to be based solely on the fact that I am intended to make edits that P Aculeius believes support a fringe position. The only proof that it is fringe is some WP article says, and, since Wikipedia is not a source for itself, this opinion is not supported. Simply, P Aculeius supports topic ban just because they do not like my viewpoint (without providing any sources or similar evidences). I am also disappointed that Amakuru finds this frivolous rationale convincing.
• I would like to see a diff that proves the Cullen³²⁸'s assertion about my "bizarre opinion that anyone who concludes that Jesus was a historical figure is therefore themself a Christian". I suggested to stop "Christian propaganda", and this my statement was based on what high quality peer-reviewed source says: it says that the researchers writing about Christ share similar goals and perspectives with believers, and, again, that is not my assertion, that is a published fact. It is quite possible to spread (intentionally or non-intentionally) a Christian propaganda without being a Christian, which means the claim that everybody who disagrees with me is Christian does not follow from my words. That means Cullen's conclusion follows not from the words I wrote in reality, but from the interpretation of my words made by others.

In summary, I suggest everyone to make their conclusions based on the words I wrote, not on the interpretations made by others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You should probably stop repeating the same arguments that you're right here. This is not the place to relitigate whether or not the Jesus myth theory is fringe. Prior consensus clearly establishes that it is. You still can't drop the stick.--Ermenrich (talk)

"Prior consensus clearly establishes that it is" Please read WP:Consensus can change what to do and what not to do when there was prior consensus.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Ermenrich, it seems you are not reading the posts you are commenting on: where did I mention Jesus myth theory in this thread? I would say it is you who are constantly returning to this subject. Regarding the "stick", my position has modified during the discussion, yours has not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The more I am reading the thread below the more I am asking myself: are my opponents reading my posts, or they are discussing some other Paul Siebert?

★Trekker's A, B & C sounds totally bizarre: one cannot request a ban for refusal to recognize historicity of Jesus. Whereas I, along with Lurking shadow, totally agree with B and C, your B and C have no relation to me: I never called anybody "Christian", as I explained in this section, I accused people of spreading Christian propaganda, which is absolutely not the same. That wording may be awkward, but that is essentially what a reliable source I presented says: "many scholars who study Christ share similar goals and perspectives with believers". If you stick with what those scholars say you (inadvertently) share these goals and perspectives too, and that does not necessarily mean you are Christian. Therefore, taking into account that many people on this page uncritically reproduces this false accusation, I expect you ★Trekker to explicitly withdraw it, for I am not responsible for the words I never said. You should either provide a diff where I call anybody a Christian, or withdraw your B & C and apologize.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

How about this [74]? I think it's clear from reading the thread that this is a conduct dispute that got heated, but that post is just gross. How are you supposed to read that as anything but accusing him of being a Christian (as if that would somehow negate his viewpoint)? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Pasta for all!-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

::What exactly do you find incorrect in that statement? I was accused of ignoring the arguments presented by others, and I responded that the person who throws this accusation ignores my own arguments despite my repeated requests to address them. What is wrong with that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You asked for an example of you calling someone a Christian. I think Can you remind me which of your beloved Gospels says "Physician, heal thyself"? is pretty clear-cut. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I was addressing to a person who was vehemently advocating historicity of Jesus and the Gospels. Does it mean I called them Christian? If that is the case, than the statement a person X loves pasta immediately implies they are a Pastafarian.:-). Please, provide something more serious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen enough. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I just said I "do not" want for you to be banned or blocked. Why are you questioning if I read your comments when you're clearly not reading mine very well? I ask of you the minimum, to accept that your theory is simply considered a fringe theory among the majority of experts and can thus not be treated as anything but a fringe theory, and for you to stop assuming bad faith of people who don't agree with you on the topic. I don't want you to be banned even if you refuse to do those things, but I will think less of you as an editor if you can't conside that you have been wrong in accsing almost everyone who disagreed with you of being Christians.★Trekker (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I got confused: your B and C related to calling someone Christian, not to some fringe theory. Obviously, my words "your beloved Gospels", similar to "your beloved War and Piece" only imply you are a proponent of some idea (in this concrete case, the idea of historicity of the events described in the Gospels). That is why your accusations were absolutely groundless: when I say someone is spreading Christian propaganda or when I say "your beloved Gospels" that doesn't imply I am making a hypothesis about the faith.

Regarding that ostensibly fringe theory, as I already explained, I am going to read more on that, because I suspect the article misinterprets some sources, and some other sources are missing. If this my hypothesis is correct, I will edit it. However, since I don't know if I am right, I cannot tell in advance if I am going to do that.

By the way, my procedure of identification of reliable sources is transparent and neutral. I am saying that because a reliable source exists that says so about a user Paul Siebert (me). Therefore, everyone will see how I am finding sources, and in the case if someones believes my sources are fringe or cherry-picked, that will be easy to check and fix.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

no one has questioned whether you've made valuable contributions to other areas of the encyclopedia. But if you start advocating a fringe theory (and of course there is a tiny minority of scholars on the fringe who support it), you'll be being disruptive.--Ermenrich (talk)

You failed to demonstrate the theory was fringe. The only evidence was a Wikipedia article. Currently, I DO NOT KNOW if this theory is fringe, because I haven't read all sources I am planning to. It may be fringe and may be not, however, this discussion has no relevance to the original thread. Please stop driving the discussion in a wrong direction.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

And what do you think this is about?--Ermenrich (talk)

Frankly, I consider this report stupid and frivolous, and I do not understand what it is about. Incivility? I think majority of the commenters do not think so. A length of a discussion? It is not that long as many other discussions I was participating in. Disruptive editing? I have done zero questionable edits. Pushing fringe views? Again, zero sources have been provided to demonstrate this view is fringe (the relevant WP article should be closely examined in terms of fact checking, accuracy and neutrality). What else? I don't know. Your frivolous report have distracted many fruitful users - for what? I don't know. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I currently count 7 editors in favor of a topic ban of some kind based on your pushing of fringe views. I suggest you rethink your strategy.--Ermenrich (talk)

I suggest you to be more accurate in your statements. Only a fraction of them cite fringe pushing as a reason. Majority of others seem to have come to their conclusion based on the false accusations thrown against me. In the unlikely case if a situation will develop in an unvaforable way, it will be easy to demonstrate, with diffs, that most of what I ostensibly wrote was written not by me.

In addition, you seem to mix consensus with vote. Legitimate concern of those who oppose has not be addressed, so there is clearly no consensus about any actions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop playing dumber than you are. You know very well you were implying over and over that I must be a Christian because I agree with the overwhelming majority of historians.★Trekker (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

See my response to Lurking shadow below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I am still under an impression the subject of this discussion is not my humble person but someone else. Thus, P Aculeius writes "He just needs to refrain from disruptive editing in the article space, for instance by deleting or dismissing valid sources and opinions based solely on his own interpretations of the evidence, or by giving undue weight to what is, essentially, a crackpot theory that's been rejected by virtually all mainstream scholarship for the last century. " Well, whereas I totally agree with that, why P Aculeius forgot to add "he should also stop beating his wife"? I made ZERO changes in the article space, I removed NO sources or content (it was my initial intention to restore the old article's version, but I clearly explained few hours after that that I meant restoring old structure, not removal old content). I also clearly explained, even before the ANI report was filed, that I am intended to read more before I make a decision about changing the Christianity related articles. P Aculeius, you are acting in a good faith, thank you, but your are discussing hypothetical actions that I may (in your opinion) take in future as if I already did that in the past. That is highly misleading. Even I myself have not decided yet what exactly I am going to do. By the way, in general, it is not my habit to remove sources when rearrangement of the content or addition of new sources may solve a problem. The question if some theory is really fringe is not a subject of this discussion. The Wikipedia article says it is, however, Wikipedia is not a source for itself. I can tell you honestly, I myself don't know if mainstream sources say it is fringe (originally I thought the view that Jesus was a historical figure are fringe, but now I see a situation is more complex), and I am certain nearly 100% of participants of this dispute do not know it either: they just read what the article says. I am going to read more on that subject, and, depending on the result, I either will edit this article or leave it as it is, and my peers have no right to prohibit me to do that without knowing what these edits will be.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in English, refrain from means "avoid", not "stop". If you read my replies carefully, you'd notice I never accused you of having edited the article disruptively; that's why I withdrew my support for the proposed topic ban, as suggested by another editor. I said that all you really needed to do to avoid a topic ban was to refrain from disruptive editing—since the changes you were proposing to make appeared potentially disruptive to all of the other editors who weighed in. As long as you have no intention of editing articles disruptively, this ANI can be resolved in your favour. The ball is in your court; the rest of us will be in the gym, doing our Pilates. P Aculeius (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but you must agree that when I am saying "He should refrain from beating his wife", that implies there is some non-zero possibility he may do that. I was not going to edit the article disruptively, and there is no evidences that I ever did that. I made clear what exactly I was going to do, and what I am not, and I am a little bit offended people are seriously discussing a possibility I can do something I never planned to.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you think you should have written this?

In that linked contribution to the discussion you say:"Indeed, only a religious Christian can believe Pilates was responsible for execution of Jesus, because other people know there were no Jesus. "

By using logic that means that you assert(there, in that sentence) that all people who believe Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus are Christians. Maybe it was spoken in the heat of the moment, but the concerns of these people do not come from thin air.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, you are right. Frankly, when I started that discussion, I sincerely thought no reasonable scholar believes in historicity of Jesus, because the Tacitus passage is either forgery or hearsay (when he was writing that Christianity had already been popular, and that myth had wide circulation), and the Josephus fragment is later addition. However, during this discussion I realized many serious (in all other aspects) authors believe in this bullshit (note, I do have POV, and I concede that). However, since a significant number of sources that are considered RS by Wikipedia say so I came to a conclusion that many authors or WP users may share this view without being religious Christians. As you already noted before, my viewpoint may evolve when I face new facts and reasonable arguments. Therefore, by the moment I was writing about "Christian propaganda" (next day) I was keeping in mind that some author/user may share this view on Jesus without being a religious Christian (which is a big surprise for me).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That's partly the point. But part of the point is that some people in that discussion might be atheists who believe that Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus and might have been quite displeased to be called Christians.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly what the source presented by me says: many scholars who study Christ share the views of believers (although they remain atheists in other aspects). Interestingly, the same source says those who study Mohammad are less affected by that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. But your argumentation is "All people who think X are Y" Those who aren't Y at all and but think X might feel personally attacked by that statement, even if it was not your intention.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Listen, I already explained that was my point of view on 29th July. It has changed in light of what I learned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly not since you keep peddling that stuff bellow.★Trekker (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

★Trekker, I will be honest with you. Until the end of July 2019 I believed the idea that historical Jesus ever existed looked as a flat Earth theory to me. I was surprised to learn it is not a fringe theory. I still got no evidences that the opposite theory (a.k.a. Jesus myth theory) is fringe, however, I was surprised to learn that many scholars writing about Christ are still sharing some idea with believers. Since a direct google scholar search gives a lot of references to various religious and theological writings, my analysis of what view is majority, minority or fringe has not been finished yet, however, my preliminary conclusion is that the theory that you call "Jesus myth theory" is by no means fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Paul Siebert, are you not allowed to reply to me down bellow where I actually leave my comments? Because it's going to be rather hard to follow this conversation if you just add your comments above with a ping to me.

As for your thoughts on what is and isn't fringe, you're clearly so biased that nothing you say can be taken seriously in my opinion, so what if you don't think that it's that fringe, I have 0 faith in you being able to judge something like this objectivly. Maybe it isn't as fringe as majority of historians think/act like, but I'm sure not going to trust you to teach me about that. Also, you're honestly going to claim you never once encountered the idea that Jesus was an actual person and this was accepted among many? What? Were you raised on some anti-intellectual Maoist commune? Did you not receive some history lessons during your education? I was raised in Sweden, possibly the most atheist country in the world, with parents and grandparents who never believe in God as long as I was alive, yet in my history lessons and talks with relatives it always seemed clear everyone knew Jesus life was based on actual historical events.★Trekker (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I find it more convenient to discuss everything here.

Regarding my alleged bias, you also look biased to me. Moreover, I believed the views you are sharing are totally fringe (I mean is not shared by a scientific community), and only after I started to search sources I realized that is not the case.

Usually, when I start working on some new topic I am using the same simple trick: I call this game "a ignorant Wikipedian". This game is as follows. Suppose you know nothing about Reichstag fire and what to know what is the mainstream view on that subject. You go to google scholar (not google) and type something neutral. Something like this. The top 20-40 sources that are well cited usually give you an rough impression what majority sources say. Then I examine the sources that cite these sources, and so on. Suppose some other Wikipedian disagrees with my choice of sources. In that case they may propose their own search results, using a different keywords, but I can always say "hey, you are using not neutral search string!". If another party uses neutral keuwords, we usually find similar sets of sources.

The problem with this particular topic is that 99% of sources I found so far are either indoctrinated religious writings or some articles published in obscure journals (nothing in common with America Historical review or similar good journals). Therefore, I still haven't got a ultimate answer for myself on how exactly I am going to edit Christianity related articles.

You arguments about allegedly fringe nature of the JMT look absolutely non-convincing. Actually, you provided ZERO arguments; now I realize that happened because you believed any reasonable person is supposed to share your views. Unfortunately, to me, the opposite was obvious: any educated and rationally thinking person was supposed to share MY views. Now I realize the actual situation is more complex, however, I still haven't come to a final conclusion what is a majority view of scholarly community on that subject. One way or the another, I don't think this discussion should belong to this page. I will be glad to continue it later on some other page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe next time you should do some proper research first before 1. demand other editors justify the current state of a Wikipedia article, 2. you talk about rewriting an article / undoing major changes, and 3. you come up with theories like "people who believe that Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus are Christians". Robby.is.on (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, a neutral search according to the above described procedure provides the sources that confirms my early claims. Thus, one of the articles that appears among the top 10 results ("Pagan origins of the Christ myth") says "The myths and legends concerning such pagan christs as Osiris, Horus, Adonis, Krishna, etc., were later interpolated into the biography of Jesus", and insists the Christ myth (sic!) has a pagan origin. That means any other person doing a neutral search would find the same information. I admit, this neutral search also provide sources that support Tracker's view. Thus, the first source, "Shattering the Christ Myth" by James Patrick Holding says (page xii): "Jesus Christ theorists are amateurs to whom professional scholars pay little attention. And finally, Jesus really was God (as opposed to being defied after he died)." I am not sure if the author was serious, however, if he was, that kind of a proof is actually a perfect demonstration of my point: that those who are trying to debunk Jesus Myth theory are actually spreading Christian propaganda. Note, I just asked GoogleScholar, picked randomly two sources from the top of the list, and one of them says that Christ is a mythological chararacter of pagan origin, another says that those who believe Christ never existed are amateurs and Christ is a God. Do we need more evidences that I was right, that I am not pushing fringe theories and my opponents are spreading Christian propaganda? I admit my conclusion may be premature, however, that is the conclusion any neutral person would come to had they typed "christ myth theory" in google scholar and take first two relevant sources (the first four were not available for me).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how much I can take this anymore. Every single thing you spout out is an arrogant deflection and projection of your own issues. You clearly have an innate dislike of Christianity, Christians, anything that is related to Christianity and anyone who doesn't share your views on Christianity and it's history. I am not biased on this topic, I have no reason to be, I hold history of Jesus and his legacy no higher than I do other historical figures (as a matter of fact I hold people like Alexander, Caesar and Augustus in far higher regard than him). Even when I personally disagree with the majority opinions of historians I can at least accept that I am indeed in the minority. For example, I don't go around and and demand Wikipedia claim the Iliad is more factual of the Bronze age than most historians think, even if I do hold that opinion.

The simple fact is that the JMT is a fringe theory and that has been the accepted consensus on it for as long as I can remember! All you have done is arogantly barge in and claim me and other people are spreading "religious propaganda" and are secret "Christians". When called out on this you simply try to gaslight and claim "well being a Christian is not a crime so how can it be an accusation?!!!" and "oh if I said you loved pasta you woulnd't be upset!!!!".★Trekker (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, although the question of my attitude to religion is my private business, I can tell you that I am an agnostic, which means I separate religion and knowledge. I am perfectly ok when the article is written solely based on Christian and theological sources, but I am totally oppose to the idea to mix science and religion.

Regarding JMT, read my response to Robby.is.on: I decided to play my "ignorant Wikipedian" game, and the result is as follows: a totally neutral person with ZERO preliminary knowledge about JMT will find two sources, one of them says Jesus myth has pagan origin, and another says JMT is fringe AND Jesus was God (sic!). I believe you must agree that the first conclusion this person will come to will be that the opponents of JMT are religious Christians. I by no means endorse this conclusion, but it looks natural, doesn't it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Funny you seem to care about religious beliefs being ones "private business" all of a sudden. You had no issue calling me and others Christians and ignoring that I insisted I was an atheist. Also, history as a field of knowlege is not generally considered a "science".★Trekker (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I expected you to answer to the major point of my post, because the results of my search looks pretty unexpected and interesting even for me. Unfortunately, you seem to be more interested in continuing the quarrel (I will be happy if this my conclusion is wrong). Actually, under "private business" I meant that my own attitude to Christianity and religion in general does not matter. However, I am not making a secret from it, and I am telling you I am agnostic (not atheist), which means my attitude is neutral. Moreover, I think Christianity had a very positive impact on the development of science. And, again, I already explained to you what I meant under "religious propaganda". If you want my frank opinion, all story around "religious propaganda" is very simple: since admins do not like to go in details of content disputes, so the best way to win it is to convert it to the conduct issue. You are free to decide if such a behaviou is honest.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

1. I am tired of trying to educate you. 2. My main issue is and has always been that you insult your fellow editors by assuming bad faith, that's why two of my requests (wherein I said I did not wish a ban or block on you) were about you learning to not do that again, but you have not even begun to realize that you have done anything wrong. 3. I don't really belive a word you say anymore, you do not seem like an honest person at all in how you have comunicated so far.★Trekker (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

★Trekker, Actually you request me to concede I called you Christian and apologize. The problem is that I didn't call you Christian, I said you are spreading Christian propaganda. I already explained (on the talk page) what does it mean, and let me do that again:

In some sense, we all, you, I, other users are Christians: we accepted some concepts, we observe Christmas and sometimes Easter, we all know Gospel stories, etc. We may be religious or not, but to some degree we all reproducing, partially, Christian narrative which is a part of our culture. However, one thing is to tell a story about Christ to our children, and another thing is to add them to serious history articles. That is what I meant under "Cristian propaganda". Have I been clear enough this time?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop already, it's getting embarrassing. Do you honestly think anyone is going to buy this drivel? Or are you honestly so arrogant that you believe your own lies? Christian means one thing and one thing only, to accept Jesus as the savior.

Also easter is originally a Jewish tradition and my family only celebrate Pagan/secular holidays amongst ourselves, such as Midsommar, Valborg/May Day, Jul and Lucia. I only observe "Christmas" with fellow Wikipedia's the same way I would "observe" Eid for my Muslim friends in real life.★Trekker (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me remind you that our civilisation is called Christian civilisation despite the fact that only a part of the Western world are religious Christians. Please, allow others to use this terminology at their own discretion.

Regarding Jewish Easter etc, each of us only partially observe Christian holidays (I myself do not observe them at all), however, emotionally Jesus is much closer to me than Mohammad or Buddha.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No. My home is not called a "Christian civiliasion", that's not a word I've ever seen used to describe my culture, Sweden is a secular nation and has been for a long time. So no, I'm not going to be fine with you labeling me a "Christian", especially since you've clearly used this technique to try to mock me and diminish my opinion. You can call yourself that if you so feel like it, (not that I belive for a second you would do it for any other reason than to try to misdirect over how you used it to insult me and others).

I also find it very disturbing that you seem to refer to something as "ours" here, I have no idea exactly where you're from but if you're implying something is "ours" just because both of us are European that does not appeal to me in the slightest. I feel no kinship with other people just because they happen to have also been born on the same continent. I don't think I have a lot in common with you.★Trekker (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't you find ironical that you, who accuse me of a negative attitude towards Christianity, deny the fact that our civilization is still Christian, whereas I defend this view? What about Protestant ethic as a significant social-economy factor? Anyway, these minuscul details are hardly relevant to this talk page.

I am living in the West, and our common home (Sweden is a part of the Western world, isn't it?) is traditionally called "Christian civilization". Modern leftists trends are gradually changing this situation, but I stick with more traditional views, and, despite I am agnostic and former atheist, Christianity is still emotionally closer to me than Islam or Buddhism. And it was normal to assume was even more applicable to you as soon as you were defending an odd (in my opinion) idea that Jesus really existed. Indeed, taking into account your position on Jesus, it was quite natural to assume that. Retrospectively, I understand that I shouldn't have to make this statement, but I couldn't know that in advance, and I already explained that to you. However, if that does not resolve the problem, that somewhat shakes my belief in your good faith, for it looks like you are just looking for a pretext for pretending you are feeling offended. I sincerely believe I err.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop gaslighting for the 1000th time, every single thing you've done wrong you're trying to peddle off on me.★Trekker (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

am I doing that by saying I was not right????--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well you're now implying that I'm prejudiced towards Christians, some thing which I've clealy expressed that I feel you are. And accepting partial guilt while simultaneously saying that "oh you're just pretending to be insulted by my insults" is gaslighting yes. You want to on the one hand act like you accept you were in the wrong, while still feeling justified in how you acted. That is not genuine. ★Trekker (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Remember what I wrote about my English? I probably didn't convey my thought adequately: I said I realize retrospectively I was not right, but by the moment I wrote that I had no reason to think I was not right. If you do not accept that as an apology, then you are just pretending you were insulted, and your actual emotions are different. I will be glad if I err.

Ok, ★Trekker, if that will make your life easier, and to save our time and page space, I formally apologize. As I already posted below, I will be absent during next two weeks, so I will not see your responce. I hope it will be peaceful. :-) --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what "err" is. Also, demanding people accept apologies on your terms is not very something which I think seems very genuine once again. I would love to be able to see your apology as completly sincere, (because I do belive based on what other people have said here that you have done great things for Wikipedia as an editor and I stand by that I don't want you banned in any way, and I really hate to be on bad terms with any other editors), but I also can't really claim I find you to be a particularly honest or pleasant person. But in the end I guess you can never truly know what people hold in their minds, so I will assume good faith here and take it you do realize it was poor judgement which lead you to say those things. Have a nice vacation.★Trekker (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Elephant in the room: CIR

Now that My very best wishes brought it up below [75], [76], I think it's time to address the broader issue of WP:CIR and what Paul Siebert's net purpose and contributions to Wikipedia are. Aside from posting literally hundreds of thousands of bytes across multiple pages promulgating the WP:FRINGE theory of the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth, Paul Siebert has engaged in similar if not worse behavior on other Wikipedia pages: [77]. In nine years he made 3,301 posts to Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes (he made only 195 to the article itself), driving good editors like My very best wishes away. He made 1,760 posts on Talk:World War II (making only 352 edits to the article itself). In less than 1.5 years he made 920 posts on Talk:Communist terrorism [78] (making only 84 edits on the article itself). He has made more than 100 posts to at least 18 article talkpages on Wikipedia, usually running into the several hundreds per talkpage: [79]. His pie-chart is an extremely lopsided 64% article-talk and 15% article: [80]. My observation is that Paul Siebert's purpose on Wikipedia appears to be to expatiate at exporbitant, unheeding, and extremely repetitive length on article-talk pages. He does not adequately seem to be here for collaborative purposes or to built an encyclopedia, and he seems broadly to lack the competence to participate in collaboratively building an encyclopedia. It seems at this point, and this current massive fringe-pushing is a case in point, that his presence on Wikipedia is likely too disruptive (we already know he is dominating conversations and driving good editors away) for him to continue. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding FRINGE, in the previous section, I just presented the results of my neutral search aimed to figure out if the claim the JMT is fringe. I agree that it is probably quite possible to find sources that support your view ... if you want to prove your already existing viewpoint. But what happens when a person who knows nothing about JMT wants to learn about it?

First, this person goes to google scholar (or jstor, or isi Thompson-Reuter, or Scopus, but NOT is google). Why? If you are competent, you will explain me that.

Second. This person types some neutral phrase ("Jesus myth theory", as I did, but not "Jesus myth theory fringe/debunked/refuted").

Third, this person reads sources that appear on the top of the list and are cited by others. I did that, and everybody can repeat this procedure to see I was not cherry-picking. And what Ii found? One of the first source says JMT is rejected by serious scholars AND Jesus was God (sic!). What conclusion a neutral person will come to? I think the answer is obvious. Another source says Jesus is a mythological character, and he was produced after pagan myths about "Osiris, Horus, Adonis, Krishna, etc., were later interpolated into the biography of Jesus."

I believe everybody will agree that the logical conclusion this person will come to is pretty obvious, and that will be NOT the conclusion will not be in favour of your viewpoint. Currently, I am not advocating this conclusion, because I am at the very beginning of the process of sources analysis, however, it is obvious that there is some ground to believe your claims are questionable at least.

Finally, I am among few Wikipedians (if not the only one) who is known to work with sources very professionally. That fact has been published in a reliable source which is easy to find. This source[81] says Paul Siebert constructs himself as a model informationsearcher (according to his user page he has a PhD so this is perhaps not so surprising).He claims no biases, uses the information technology of choice for Wikipedia editors(Google Scholar) and applies the criteria of peer-review as a means to filter potentialinformation sources. And the sources he finds I think would be viewed by the majority of librarians or scholars as decent enough....

Again, that is an opinion about me published in the source that meets all top reliablility secondary sources criteria. That means you are expected to present something more serious that your baseless allegations, for outstanding claims require outstanding evidences. And all of that cast a serious doubt on your own competence.

Regarding my posts on other talk pages, believe you or not World War II is a very high level article, it is being read by nearly 100,000 persons every day, so we, the users who are working on this article do that very cautiously, and discuss every change on the talk page first. However, if you find this habit non-productive or disruptive, you may directly ask JoshRamirez29, User:Jack90s15, Jack Upland, Nick-D, Volunteer Marek, this and others about that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And, as soon as you mentioned Mass Killings... article, if you can do anything but counting the number of edits (I sincerely believe you can), you should have probably noticed that the article was under severe edit restrictions for several years, and after that was fully protected during 6 years or so. Each new edit was supposed to be supported by consensus, and only after some admin implemented it. It is not a surprise that to put just a couple of words in teh article users had to type thousands words on the talk page. The fact that you overlooked this circumstance does not add credibility to your assertions in general.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever in my years on this site seen an editor with such a high opinion on themselves. Fine, you seem to have some reason to have a high opinion of yourself, that doesn't change that you have been increddibly rude and assumed bad faith during the majority of this whole ordeal. If you can't actually act in compliance with Wikipedia's demands you shouldn't be here. We don't need editors who scare away other good editors. No matter how good you are you're not infallible, which you act like you are, (clearly you're not very good with ancient history). How about take some of the criticism so far to heart and maybe better yourself?★Trekker (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Trekker, be logical: when someone throws a bizarre accusation of my incompetence, the best way is to respond in the same exaggerated way. The same source that I already cited says that sometimes Wikipedia breaks standard criteria of competence, but does not replace them with equally good new rules. The first thing Wikipedia needs is a good content: it is the world's most important informational resource, not your hobby. Regarding "we dpn't need editors who scare away other good editors", if you are really good, it is not easy to scare you, because your arguments are strong, and your statements are hard to refute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is most definitely my hobby. I'm not going to break my back bending over to please you and your delusions of grandeur. I'm not obligated (nor is anyone else) to do a single thing but abide by Wikipedia's guidlines when I edit, I edit for fun, not some obligation towards the world, if I got bored with Wikipedia tomorrow I would quit without a second thought. This is a volunteer effort, not some job we get rewarded for, if you scare of people they're not going to be automatically replaced because the "position" is vacant, doesn't matter how good you supposedly are at citing if no one wants to work with you. People aren't scared of your opinons or sources, they're scared of your forceful, rude, arogant, manipulative and disingenuous personality. Also, none of the accusations so far have been remotely "bizarre", you acted like a di*k and refused to consider other peoples positions as anything but "biased Christians", now you're here and people are telling you exactly that.★Trekker (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, it is a hobby for both of us. Obviously, what I meant that the primary goal of Wikipedia is not to be your hobby.

And I neither expect nor want anybody to bend over. My post was an answer to a blatantly incompetent accusation in incompetence.

Treker, believe me, the only situation I am pleased is when my arguments are addressed using even stronger arguments. I love convincing people I am right, and I equally love when someone convinces me I am wrong. However, by convincing I mean not "You are obviously not right, XXX people say you that", but "You are not right, because there is a logical flaw in this your argument, and the source Y was misinterpreted by you." THAT type of arguments I gladly accept, and I that is what I call "to show respect".

By the way, you probably noticed from my habit to put "the" totally arbitrarily that English is not my mother tong (one friend of mine even told be he can easily that resognise a document was written by my compatriots based on very specific mistakes we do when we place "a" and "the"). Therefore, I am not surprised some nuances of my English may create a wrong impression of rudeness or arrogance. However, that is just a wrong impression. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No Siebert, I do not belive that the "impression of rudeness" comes from minor slipups in English writing. I don't belive you're bad at English at all, I think on the other hand that you use the fact that English is not your first language to feign ignorance.★Trekker (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought my English writing skills were more poor. Actually, I meant not grammar, but cultural aspects. In my native country we are more direct, which creates a wrong impression of rudeness. And, in addition, where is your own assumption of good faith? I told you I had no intention to insult others, I told you I have an impression I sometimes am not feeling some nuances that may insult others - then point my attention at that. As a rule, when that is explained to me I am trying to avoid this tyupe wording.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

My good faith assumptions towards you kinda died after the third time I asked you to acknowledge that accusing people of being Christians to diminish their opinions is not cool and very unfounded.★Trekker (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, if I say that it was not the most wise statement I made during that discussion, will it resolve a situation?

Let me also note that your repeating posts "you are obviously wrong, just admit it" were really annoying and they insulted my brain, for I usually expect such claims to be supplemented with some real arguments. I consider that behaviou deeply insulting, so, please, admit we both were not right in that dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not surprised your brain felt insulted, you seem like the type who can't comprehend when someone doesn't bend over and accept everything you say. And no, I'm not giving in to your poor bargening here, "well agree we were both in the wrong", that would be disengenous on my part becuse that would mean I feel we were anything near equally guilty. We are not. You barged in to a subject demanding stuff be done and having a long time plan for several other pages without having even a good grasp on the subject at all and then proceded to make a complete fool of yourself by insulting people left and right when they had a different opinion. This is once again an attempt at gaslighting by moving the guilt on to someone else. No sympathy.★Trekker (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I dont have access to that article, but finding sources that are "decent enough" in an article whose abstract says Wikipedians deal "shallowly" with sources and dont invest much time in them feels like fairly light praise. Also note the paper says "Paul Siebert constructs himself as a model informationsearcher" not that you are one. That's not to say you didn't do a good job at the Vietnam article, but I don't think your mention in that paper amounts to much based on what I've seen.

Just as an example of some questionable source practices you're displaying now: You neglected to mention that the paper that supports the Jesus myth theory you found is from the 60s, and the pro paper is clearly not representative. I suspect you dismiss any journal with "biblical" in its title, am I wrong?--Ermenrich (talk)

this link should work. Let me know if you were able to download it. In a case if it is not working, here are some quotes:

" It is Paul Siebert, champion of the more traditional information routine, who digs deeper into the sources than anyone else,using contextual knowledge to argue against the inclusion of RAND reports (this particular report was not highly cited in Google Scholar and RAND itself, being heavily obligated to the US Government, cannot be considered an unbiased agent). He also appears to have actually read the Moise article and provides an outline of the argument showing that it does not rely uncritically on Communist Party newspapers. He also qualifies Porter’s errors regarding the Khmer Rouge, noting that little information wascoming out of Cambodia at the time and hence many were fooled..."

"the history of the substitution of these three sources for the others generally agreedon through the RSN is an interesting one–the switch was made on 19 February 2013,only a month or so after the RSN debate. The comment accompanying the change wasmerely:“Use original sources”. This time there was no Paul Siebert to intervene and thechange remains up to the time of writing."

And he wrote not just "decent enough", but "viewed by the majority of librarians or scholars as decent enough....".

Frankly, I don't like to cite this article, I have to do that because people accuse me of incompetence.

Actually, what is more interesting in this article is the concept of Pfister’s destabilisation: "Wikipedia destabilizes familiar information routines, that is, changes the criteria we use to judge expertise, albeit, I would argue, without replacing them with much that could be construed as progressive". I think we are having here exactly the same situation: you are claiming I am incompetent without setting good competence criteria. Actually, the only reason you guys claim you are competent is that you achieved a consensus among themselves. I do not claim this is a bad criterion, but I doubt it is good either.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just noticed two good question you asked. Here are my answers:

• "You neglected to mention that the paper that supports the Jesus myth theory you found is from the 60s, and the pro paper is clearly not representative." That is why I am using a totally transparent procedure: you got an opportunity to put forward this argument. Here are the results of another search that includes only the 2015-19 period. The first article I has access to is this. I had no time to read it, but it discusses Buddha and Christ myths, and the author seems to be a proponent of JMT.
• "If I I suspect you dismiss any journal with "biblical" in its title, am I wrong?" It depends. If the journal is published by Pergamon, Springer, Whiley, Cambridge University press, SAGE and similar publishers, the journals are quite ok. If they are listed in ISI Thompsom-Reuter, can be found in jstor, that is a sign the journals are good. The above paper seems to be published in a journal of some society of Brazilian scholars, so it is ok too. I don't know yet about other journals that publish Christianity related papers, let's think together.

In addition, I think the word "biblical" or something of that kind is not a kind of a stop sign that immediately disqualifies such a journal, however, when some journal published papers that seriously discuss Christ's miracles, or contains statements about divinity of Christs (similar to what Ii presented above), that immediately makes impossible to use sich publications as sources in the WP articles in the same section with the content obtained from scholarly journals. I expect you agree with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Responding to the ping above, I'd confirm that Paul's high number of edits to Talk:World War II is due to the conventions regarding this very high profile article, where significant proposed changes are discussed before being made, sometimes in great detail. Using this as a stick to hit Paul with suggests a total lack of research - it actually demonstrates that he's making a valuable contribution to the article. I've worked with Paul for years on that article, and while we don't always agree I greatly respect the constructive way he conducts himself in discussions (I'm both the second-most prolific contributor to discussions at Talk:World War II and the second-most prolific editor of the article BTW - I hope this isn't a sign that I'm disruptive!). Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• At this point, I would support a ban from Wikipedia. It seems to me that he tries to disgust active members from contributing by swarming them under massive walls of text and deliberately misinterpreting other editors' arguments, shifting goalposts, etc., but only on the talk pages. I have to say he is very talented at doing this, and that it is a very clever way to maliciously influence Wikipedia without being spotted, since he barely contributes to the articles—some members have even defended him on this very fact here. T8612 (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban

Since 29 July 2019 Paul Siebert has thus far made 82 posts totalling 47,000 bytes to Talk:Pontius Pilate, in a single thread [82]. No one has supported his proposals or arguments, and they have been objected to by eight editors: Ermenrich, *Treker, Urg writer, Ltwin, P Aculeius, T8612, Andrew Dalby, and Johnbod. He has been asked to desist (due to clear lack of consensus) by uninvolved editors including Furius and William Avery, and has been asked to either desist or create an RFC by uninvolved editor Softlavender. He was also formally warned on his usertalk [83] by Doug Weller. Nevertheless he has continued to voluminously argue with others, even in the face of repeated warnings that this would go to ANI if he persisted.

In the face of this endless WP:DE and WP:TE, I propose one or both of the following Topic bans:

1. Topic ban on Pontius Pilate.

2. Topic ban on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed.

-- Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed, as proposer. Enough is enough, and Paul Siebert will continue his crusade onto other articles if he is banned only from the Pontius Pilate article. Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed. The discussion above gives me no hope that Paul Siebert has learned anything from this experience so far, and I think if he does not receive these topic bans now he'll just disrupt the project more on other Jesus/Christianity related articles in the future, as he indeed has said he intends to do. (This is only my second time at ANI, so I apologize if I'm not supposed to vote as the person who brought the complaint).--Ermenrich (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed. I explained my thinking in detail in the section above. In brief, Paul Siebert's bizarre opinion that anyone who concludes that Jesus was a historical figure is therefore themself a Christian is so illogical that it disqualifies this editor to work in this topic area. Ermenrich, you are fine. You are welcome to express your considered judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed which should be understood to include any Biblical as well as other notable figures in Christian history Their tendentious WP:PROFRINGE editing and WP:IDHT behavior in this discussion is enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose There are some things that lead me to believe that there is more than one problem. We should not act with great haste on this complicated situation:

Just a bit more than 10 minutes after Paul Siebert started the discussion Emenrich started to inform the Christianity portals: [84] Shortly after that Ermenrich described good faith editing as vandalism. Also, there is a general pile-on by people from the Portal. This is a problematic edit by Paul Siebert, because it says that "Indeed, only a religious Christian can believe Pilates was responsible for execution of Jesus, because other people know there were no Jesus." which is a sweeping generalization indicative of a strong POV. A similar edit comes a bit later:[85]. The next problematic edit comes from *Treker, who insists that "no one is going to support your idea", a phrase easily used to stifle legitimate discussion. This makes clear that a source used is unreliable(That's not problematic, indeed, that's progress). [86] A source of unknown reliablilty, can someone else research that? Here we have a significant number of sources cited, by Paul Siebert. I don't have enough time to research if they are fringe sources or not... Another batch of sources? Also, something that looks like an attempt to come forward... This is a good point bringing the discussion forward... and then we have this post. Siebert argues moderately, and even changes their viewpoint(!) a bit. And he is correct in that the other side of the discussion failed to provide an adequate number of reliable sources to that point! Contrast this with the the next contribution. This is the point where Softlavender comes in and argues that there is clearly a consensus against Paul Siebert's opinion, a viewpoint that my analysis does not support. There are more people on the other side, but less sources provided in the discussion. They also assert that the discussion is becoming disruptive because of the number of bytes, but that's simply a bad idea to say, as long as there is progress. The next person comes in and asserts that there is something wrong with one editor arguing against multiple editors; saying this just after that person moved their viewpoint a bit in that direction cannot be a good idea. I suggest that these advocating a ban look at the next link: [87] The frustration and the reasoning there are totally sound to have.

TL;DR:Paul Siebert is making long, sourced arguments against a number of editors giving little sources; is indeed contrary to the assertions taking the others into account, including changing their opinion. On the other hand, the other editors do not directly provide sources, with one or two exceptions, and demand to be seen as consensus because they have the numbers. Lurking shadow (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. He's still clearly editing against WP:CONSENSUS, and repeatedly engaging in WP:DE and WP:TE. No one out of 12 editors (some of them completely uninvolved) agreed with him. Wikipedia operates by WP:CONSENSUS, not by who posts the most or the longest or lists the most sources. Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That's extremely wrong. He isn't editing against consensus, he is arguing something trying to get to a consensus. These arguments have been opposed by other editors without much good reasoning as no consensus from very early on in this discussion. That they changed their views on the subject a bit already is also definitely not a sign of tendentious editing, at least not a sign of continued tendentious editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurking shadow (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope, that's tendentiously and disruptively editing against a very clear consensus and repeated requests to drop the stick. Perhaps you don't know these things, having made less than 300 edits on Wikipedia [88], but you already have a topic ban of your own [89], so maybe you're not the best commenter on this subject. Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you please give me some diffs of tendentious editing? Or disruptive editing? Can you please tell me why the debate is supposed to have reached its natural end by having only circular arguments anymore? I see a bit of circular discussion. But mainly in the middle of the debate. I also see, however, a break into new arguments and into a new viewpoint near the end of the debate, shortly before you came in.Lurking shadow (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how long or "sourced" your arguments are if what you're saying is still nonsense.★Trekker (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed as phrased by Ad Orientem above. I have had no involvement with the editor (that I can recall) and have not been involved in the articles, but wading through the discussions including the one right here makes it very clear that this is tendentious and disruptive editing that has taken up a lot of time from other editors. --bonadea contributions talk 07:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed which should be understood to include any Biblical as well as other notable figures in Christian history (ie per Ad Orientem). My advice and warning clearly didn't work and he doesn't seem able to drop the stick. I also note that he said that I was an involved editor on the basis that in April 2015 I reverted an era style change and then later in the thread on his talk page that I was involved because of the discussion on his talk page. Admin involvement doesn't work that way. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as construed by Ad Orientem. [see below] Not being an administrator, I think this may be the first time I've weighed in on ANI, and I don't take this position lightly. I know how it feels to be certain that you're right, even when everyone else in the room disagrees. But I also know when to drop the stick, and Mr. Siebert doesn't seem to; indeed, he's not just arguing that the other editors are wrong, but that their opinions, all of the opinions of scholars who disagree with his position, and all of the evidence that weighs against his opinion are wrong, invalid, or inherently biased because they disagree. Based on the tone of the discussion and his own statements, I'm concerned that he'll try to implement what I consider, and what Wikipedia's own article on the topic of the Jesus myth theory says is a fringe position, potentially on numerous articles. I note from his talk page that he seems to have been a productive editor in other fields in the past; and I'm not questioning his claims of good faith, but as established in the "disruptive editing" topic, good faith isn't a defense against DE. So at least for now a topic ban seems to be the right solution. P Aculeius (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as construed by Ad Orientem. - P Aculeius talks a lot of sense, and this seems to be the best remedy, given that Siebert is not hearing the multiple voices telling them that they have pursued this too far.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose topic ban. This seems to be almost entirely confined to a single overly-wordy section on one page and a single relatively brief WP:RSN request; that falls far short of anything that could be reasonably called disruption on its own. When people talk about WP:IDHT on talk pages, it tends to mean much more extreme stuff than this - stuff that requires people clean it up, like starting countless redundant discussions on multiple venues, not just being intransigent in one discussion, confined (mostly) to a single section. WP:IDHT in particular talks about sanctions only in the context of Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed, which is clearly talking about actions and about more actively disruptive talk page editing (things that have to be "cleaned up", WP:BOLD actions that are actually reckless, etc), not merely intransigence in a single talk page section - a topic ban shouldn't be used for "jesus, why won't he shut up?" How have things been disrupted for anyone who just stays out of that one discussion section after dropping their opinion there a single time? All else aside, I'm not seeing why the people in dispute with him can't just... ignore him? They're capable of WP:DROPTHESTICK as well, since plainly he lacks consensus to actually implement his changes and (at least, I assume, based on the fact that those diffs would obviously be the key part of discussion if this weren't true) shows no inclination to actually try and implement his proposed changes against consensus. Sometimes the solution is just to stop talking - nobody is forced to "clean up" his talk page comments; once it's clear he lacks consensus (and once they've dropped their opinion in once to make that clear), they're free to wander off. I'm also not seeing any evidence above that the editor has actually been a problem in this topic area outside of this one dispute, which is, again, confined to one section and one small WP:RSN request (people imply he'd just wander off to another page, but... that's something you have to show from his edit history.) What this looks like is a bunch of people on all sides refusing to back down and stop arguing with each other long after debate has reached a natural conclusion. But the article-content thing seems settled, so nobody has to actually keep arguing this - no one is forced to spend time replying to him - and, conversely, that means that Siebert's comments are hard to really qualify as disruption, especially since (by my reading) this is all essentially confined to one talk page section on a single article. If Siebert were starting new discussions over and over or across countless different venues, sure, that would be disruptive, but in this case nothing seems to stop anyone else involved from saying "we've said our piece, it's clear consensus is against you for now, bye." Also, finally - it seems like nobody has even attempted an WP:RFC, which is the obvious dispute-resolution step when someone refuses to accept that they've reached a consensus. Leaping to WP:ANI to demand a topic-ban over refusal to accept a consensus, without even taking that first obvious step to shut down this sort of protracted discussion, seems to me to be extremely premature. I'm not saying an RFC is necessary given the lopsided discussions - I think people could just stop replying to Siebert, as I said above, since he's shown no actual inclination to put his edits into effect once it was clear how many people opposed them - but if they want this decisively resolved, that would be the obvious step, not a topic ban. People accuse Seibert of ignoring suggestions to create an RFC, but it's unclear why (if they feel discussions are going in circles or are no longer productive, or if they think there's a clear consensus that Siebert is refusing to accept) they couldn't just create that RFC themselves. For that matter, nobody has tried hatting the discussion or, well, anything beyond just arguing in circle and then leaping straight to ANI) - Siebert reverting attempts to hat the discussion, for instance, would be more convincing WP:IDHT than "he won't stop talking in this one section and we, for some reason, are unable to resist replying." Am I missing something here? The support for a topic ban, above, seems absurd - yes, it's possible to require one just from WP:IDHT on talk; no, this doesn't seem anywhere remotely close to a point where it could be legitimately considered, let alone actively supported. We have countless methods to resolve situations like this before reaching for sanctions. --Aquillion (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • An 800-word wall-of-text poll !vote? No wonder you don't understand the problem. It's nonstop endless posts like this that disrupt the project with endless distraction. Not replying to someone who threatens to disrupt other articles if he fails to get his way (or to revert to his desired version if people do not meet his demands) is not an option. It is up to the person who clearly does not have consensus to stop their disruption, especially when asked repeatedly by both involved and uninvolved editors and even administrators and when told repeatedly that more disruption will result in ANI and probably a topic ban. Ignoring those simple and clear requests and protocols is not only the essence of WP:DE and WP:TE, it is also the essence of WP:CIR, and the fact that the editor is continuing their nonsensical campaign on this ANI thread is more evidence that there is a fairly serious WP:CIR problem that may come up again even with the topic ban in place. Softlavender (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    • He made one comment (his initial post at the start of the section) suggesting a change to the article - entirely reasonable given that nobody had weighed in yet to establish consensus and the initial rewrite was WP:BOLD - and one other comment suggesting a related broader change which was clearly shot down. In neither case did he suggest he would push those issues once it was clear he lacked consensus; characterizing him as someone who threatens to disrupt other articles based on that is torturous to the point of bordering on a personal attack. Anyone is going to look bad when they have eight people arguing against him, and obviously he should have shut up long ago, but continuing a single centralized discussion, on a single talk page, when nobody has made any effort to resolve the discussion beyond repeatedly replying to him, is obviously not disruptive. (Again, nobody has attempted even the bare minimum of hatting it, marking it as resolved, or one of the numerous methods available to shut down discussions that are going nowhere.) And, honestly, you are not helping your case by immediately accusing the second oppose !vote of being disruptive; obviously I'm going to be wordy when it seems like so many experienced editors are missing multiple vital aspects of this discussion. WP:IDHT, WP:DE, WP:TE and WP:CIR are not tools to resolve disputes, they're there to resolve actual disruption - things that require time and effort for editors to repair, not just discussions that you can't personally resist wasting time on. "I want Paul Siebert (and Aquillion and Lurking Shadow, I suppose now) to shut up" isn't disruption. --Aquillion (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
      • You can see a bit of tendentious arguing, initially. But this link, especially "Moreover, I realized I was partially wrong, and in reality a part of scholars still believe the Tacitus passage about Christ is authentic (although many of them conclude he just reproduced a story told by some early Christian). For me, that is a new information, and I am glad I found it." does not look like a stubborn WP:IDHT editor that edits to further some bias. Rather, it looks like an editor who does have some initial bias and has assumed things about sourcing wrongly but is able to re-assess that based on what others said. They have heard it. Just not right away. Lurking shadow (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Except that hes actually still wrong and arguing about something completely extraneous to the matter at hand.
        • Also, I'd like to note that I was very publicly sharing my draft on the article's talk page. Paul Siebert could have easily commented before instead of simply threatening to undo everything.--Ermenrich (talk)
          • That they are wrong is your opinion. Did you back up your reasoning that it is a fringe theory by directly naming sources that say it is actually a fringe theory? Did you back it up by directly naming all the established sources and pointing out that the vast majority of them reject that theory? WP:TE goes both ways - a theory isn't fringe just because you believe so or because a Wikipedia article currently says so(Wikipedia articles are not a WP:RS).Lurking shadow (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
          • It is not unusual that people only realize that there is something they disagree with happening to an article when you actually edit that article.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

As I stated above, I and other editors pointed to the sources cited in the article, all of which assume the historicity of Jesus as non controversial. Paul Siebert simply dismissed those RS and started using their own logic to disprove Jesus.--Ermenrich (talk)

• Support Pontius TBAN, Oppose Broader TBAN - I feel the reasoning made is sufficient to prove both disruptive and quite possibly CIR issues. However, while I certainly recognise the risks of the tendentious editing (though on talk pages) moving to related themes, I am disinclined to make such a broad TBAN until required. The fact that they aren't causing article-editing disruption means the editor isn't out of control. I strongly considered opposing the TBAN entirely, but I felt that a reasonable case had been made. I don't know if the editor will improve, but there is certainly more chance than with others we've seen. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: that's a good point, why don't we wait and see if Mr. Siebert actually begins removing valid sources without adequate reasons, or inappropriately inserts Jesus Myth theory into articles? Obviously the theory exists and can be mentioned in appropriate places and with the proper tone—although as it's a fringe theory it could easily be given undue weight if added to every potentially relevant article. But it's hard to judge instances without seeing the proposed additions, which in any case could be edited collaboratively if necessary. So calming down and waiting to see what happens before implementing a topic ban seems eminently sensible. As Aquillion says, it's not disruptive editing unless it actually occurs in the article, and can't be adequately dealt with by the usual means (such as trimming or rewording). P Aculeius (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think he either gets tban'd now or it will happen later. I dont think he'll be able to write productively on these subjects.--Ermenrich (talk)

You're probably right, but a topic ban at this point would amount to what we might call "prior restraint", i.e. an administrative sanction for something that hasn't happened yet. So far, he's only argued that he ought to revise/revert/rewrite a group of topics to reflect a certain viewpoint. While imposing a topic ban would prevent him from doing so, it would also prevent him from making legitimate edits, and go on his record, so it's not entirely harmless. And unlike the types of harm against which you might seek an injunction, anything he does can be revised or reverted if necessary, leaving no lasting harm. And that would be the time to consider imposing a topic ban. P Aculeius (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment All I honestly want is A) for him to accept that the current majority opinion among modern historians is that Jesus existed, B) for him to stop acting like accusing other people of being Christian is not an attempt at diminishing their opinions on this topic, and C) realize that not everyone how belives Jesus existed is a Christian or even religious for that matter. I do not ask for a topic ban or even a block.★Trekker (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

B and C are definitely requests I can endorse based on what I have read. I will not expect them accepting A at all unless you can actually back up that it is the current majority opinion with reliable sources that say that it is the majority opinion(and even if it is - not every theory opposing the majority opinion is a fringe theory); and with backing up I mean linking these sources and explaining how they back your statements, not merely proclaiming their existance.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, he doesn't really need to accept anything. He just needs to refrain from disruptive editing in the article space, for instance by deleting or dismissing valid sources and opinions based solely on his own interpretations of the evidence, or by giving undue weight to what is, essentially, a crackpot theory that's been rejected by virtually all mainstream scholarship for the last century. We don't have to prove to him that he's wrong, as long as he doesn't use Wikipedia as a platform to prove that he's right. There are, incidentally, plenty of historical sources cited in the Pilate article and the Jesus Myth theory article that support the basic premise currently in dispute: namely, that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person who lived in Judaea, was put to death by crucifiction during the governorship of Pontius Pilate, and whose followers ascribed to him the attributes, deeds, and teachings that subsequently formed the basis of Christianity. History says nothing about his divinity or any supposed miracles performed by him; only what his contemporaries and subsequent generations said about him. The scholars already cited for the proposition that Jesus Myth theory is not a mainstream view clearly indicate that the theory is discredited: 1) because it requires the rejection of all of the evidence indicating that Jesus was an actual person, including the opinions of writers who were not Christian or even hostile to Christianity; and 2) it requires the assumption that rather than simply embellishing and mythologizing stories about an actual person, the early Christians simply invented a person who never existed in order to justify their religion worshiping him—and got away with it, since nobody until modern times, including the Romans themselves, seems to have doubted that there was such a person! But I digress. Opinions are like cows: everybody has one, and Mr. Siebert's entitled to his. We don't have to change it, as long as he doesn't use Wikipedia as a platform to share it. P Aculeius (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• • Nosebagbear and P Aculeius, Paul Siebert has stated several times and in several places that he is going to take his "Jesus-did-not-exist" campaign to a variety of other Wikipedia articles. I realize that this may be hard to discern amidst the huge mountain of verbiage he has generated both here and on article-talk and on usertalk pages, but that is a fact, and that is the continued disruption that the topic ban(s) are attempting to prevent. We don't have the manpower to babysit him and see whether he carries out those plans or not. Hence the broader topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban on historicity of Jesus, or whatever is necessary. Stuff like this [90] is excessive. Their failure to acknowledge how problematic their behavior is, and the continued denial of any problem, indicates that the disruption will continue until this editor is removed from the topic area. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Canvassing by Ermenrich I just looked at the message Ermenrich wrote at these two portals they mentioned, the message that was responsible for the initial batch of people coming in and it is a clear-cut case of canvassing:[91]; [92]. Lurking shadow (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC) I did not learn of this discussion through those messages, and came to this conversation entirely on my own. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC) I don't doubt that, because my accusations of canvassing relate to the discussion that spawned this ANI thread, not to this thread itself.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC) How is that canvassing, anyway? As opposed to an attempt at getting some outside input from related Wikiprojects? El_C 06:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Because it is a clearly biased message? Them contacting these wikiprojects in a neutral manner would not have been a problem.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict):Lurking shadow, as far as I know, posting at project pages is not considered canvassing, although Ermenrich was supposed to use more neutral wording. By the way, now I started to partially understand the reason for such an inadequate reaction: for some reason, he concluded I was going to remove all content added by him, whereas I wanted just to re-arrange it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC) The messages report a dispute over an attempt to undo editing that was based on and cited to reliable sources, and they were posted on WikiProject talkpages, the standard venue for such notices. This is not canvassing. Plus one of the WikiProjects had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity, so no one viewing that notice had any disposition towards a Christian perspective. Neither of the notices were about this ANI thread. Lurking shadow, whatever you're trying to do, and for whatever reason, it's not helping Paul Siebert -- it's making him look worse. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Did you read the notice Softlavender? The location of the notice is not the problem, it is the content of that notice - it is obviously and extremely biased towards the wishes of its author.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC) I read the notices. The messages report a dispute over an attempt to undo editing that was based on and cited to reliable sources, and ask neutrally for help. This is not canvassing; this is getting outside opinions from relevant WikiProjects. Lurking shadow, whatever you're trying to do, and for whatever reason, it is not helping Paul Siebert and your posts are becoming repetitive and disruptive. I wouldn't be surprised if your sections get collapsed. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC) "... and ask neutrally for help". What? Neutrally? How is this a neutral message? A neutral message does not include the preferences of its author. . It does not describe an opposing view as a threat. It definitely does not contain a plea for help against an opposing view!Lurking shadow (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC) The message did not describe the "opposing view" as "a threat"; in fact, it did not mention an "opposing view", but rather accurately stated that "Paul Seibert is threatening to undo the extensive rewrite I have just performed", which is exactly what Paul Siebert said he would do: "I am going to revert all recent changes and restore the old article structure." -- Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC) A much more neutral message would look like this in this case: A rewrite of Pontius Pilate is currently under discussion. One of the arguments against the rewrite is as follows: "We should never mix Pilates as a real historical figure with Pilates as he was described in Gospels Otherwise, we have to admit Gospels are historical documents, and Jesus was a real person, not a Christian mythology character." One of the arguments for the rewrite is as follows:"The Christ myth theory is a minority opinion. All the reliable sources I have used describe Jesus as a historical person." Your contributions would be welcome. That would still not be perfect, but I wouldn't complain about it.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Lurking shadow, that was not the issue at hand. The issue at hand, which Ermenrich accurately summarized, was that Paul Siebert was about to immediately and unilaterally completely revert the RS-citation-based rewrite of the article that Ermenrich had just completed. You made an inaccurate accusation of canvassing, and were disproved, even by Paul Siebert himself. Now please stop before you yourself are reported for disruptive and tendentious editing, and possibly blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Let's just agree to disagree on canvassing here - although I agree that the threat of reversal could have been included.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Like Aquillion, I'm squeamish about singling someone out for a ban because of a long and tedious, but civil, talk page discussion. Haukur (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Haukur, Paul Siebert has stated several times and in several places that he is going to take his "Jesus-did-not-exist" campaign to a variety of other Wikipedia articles. I realize that this may be hard to discern amidst the huge mountain of verbiage he has generated both here and on article-talk and on usertalk pages, but that is a fact, and that is the continued disruption that the topic ban(s) are attempting to prevent. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Christianity. However, you should know that Paul behave exactly the same on all pages, including subjects related to WWII, eastern Europe, etc. I tried to work with him, but could not. I end up avoiding any pages that he edits and submitting this request at WP:AE, without any result. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Premature, though Paul should back off, take a deep breath, study the relevant sources, and come back with a concrete and concise proposal. I will also note that having looked at some of sources allegedly supporting the labelling of the Christ myth hyopethesis as a "fringe theory" (bandied about here, on RSN, and on the article talk page) - I am entirely unconvinced as the sources, per my reading, do not use that language (they do support the notion that full out myth is a minority position, but minority does not mean WP:FRINGE).Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Icewhiz, at the risk of being off topic, have you looked at Talk:Historicity of Jesus/FAQ? Particularly the list of books makes it clear there aren't any actual scholars in the field who support the myth theory.--Ermenrich (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I reviewed the citations themselves - they support this is a distinct minority position - however they do no go as far as calling this a "fringe theory" - which is a very strong assertion which we should not be using unless strong sources spell this out as "fringe", "conspiracy", etc. Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
      • What about this source here [93]? Quote: "Given the fringe status of these theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles." (p. 312).--Ermenrich (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I don't have access to it at the moment (probably will in a few days on a different computer) - need to see context, however that seems to be a response to Richard Carrier's writings (and such responses can be heated also within academia) - and - I would say that the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus is perhaps not the most neutral venue here. That being said - this particular source is better than the ones I've reviewed in Christ myth theory in that the quote you provide does use "fringe". I definitely agree that current consensus is that there was probably (a qualification used for many ancient figures) a historical Jesus of some (varying) sort. I just think that if we are to "fringe theory" label this in articles lead (a-la Moon landing conspiracy theories) - we need strong sources asserting fringe/conspiracy status. Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• As an additional comment, I want to say that there has been a refusal to hear from the other side as well. A refusal that is definitely partly responsible for this escalation. When Paul Siebert asked for sources, they got "the sources are in the article", when indeed some sources had been present before the rewrite(this much is evident from the history of the article) and there was zero effort in showing that the sources actually supported their arguments. While Paul Siebert did discuss a good number of sources they linked the rest of the editors did not link a single source to support their argument during the entire discussion!.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be 100% honest here. To someone with even a little bit of knowledge of Roman history the idea of denying Jesus historicity is the equivalent of "flat earthing" that's why no one bothered to do more than direct him to the general overview of the subject with all the sources he would need did he bothered to read it with an open mind. Why should we feel obligated to educte a stonewall on something so clearly universally acepted when all the sources are already there for him to look trought? Heck, a google search should have been enough, but no, he insisted on pestering people and insulting them. He can't even take responsibility over his bad faith, still pretending that he didn't mean anything by "your beloved gospels".★Trekker (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Lurking shadow -- Yes, they did. They repeatedly linked to entire Wikipedia articles full of reliable source citations. There is no need to provide individual refuting sources for a fairly preposterous WP:FRINGE belief, when nearly the entire body of scholarship already refutes it. And editors know better than to fan the flames of nonsensical debate by offering only one or two sources and thus continuing the already massive and unnecessary discussion ad infinitum. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed. He does not understand how consensus works, but to me the most annoying things about him is that he deliberately misrepresents other editors' arguments. Initially, I was only for a limited ban, but after seeing @My very best wishes: post above, I think it is better to entirely remove him from these topics, just to shield other editors from his huge stonewalls. T8612 (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. You should check involvement of Paul at Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes. That's a killing of [time of] wikipedia contributors. I left it for good. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I have not read it yet, but allow me to make a "wild guess" My very best wishes, Mr. Siebert is perhaps a bit of a communism apologist maybe?★Trekker (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this user pushes pro-Soviet propaganda/views on all pages, from Gulag and Gas van to Jesus Christ. He is probably the most relentless "civil POV-pusher" I have seen in the project. You think he will be topic banned? Think again. You should be happy that Christianity is not the major area of his interest. My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, 331 edits to Talk:Gulag, 563 edits to Talk:Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact, 3302 to Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes. It is unbelievable. T8612 (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed. However, the problem is not only the number of edits, but POV-pushing. OK, these subjects are big and complicated. Let's take a small a simple page, like Gas van, see discussion here. I argue that a book by Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, KGB: The State Within a State. should be used as a scholarly book that tells something exactly on the subject, along with other sources. This should be simple, right? Wrong. An extremely long discussion follows, after which I am leaving this page to never edit it again, simply because I am tired (see also this part: Paul fight with every author who does not fit his POV, even a Nober Prize winner; the discussion includes some Russian texts; Paul is a native speaker, just like me). The "winner" happily removes the reference to the book, along with direct quotation from the book [94], and he does it with false/misleading edit summary (no, the book by Albats does NOT "cite the same tabloid paper"). That is what Paul do on many pages. That was the reason for my WP:AE report [95]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Paul Siebert's most recent comments ("Until the end of July 2019 I believed the idea that historical Jesus ever existed looked as a flat Earth theory to me. I was surprised to learn it is not a fringe theory. I still got no evidences that the opposite theory (a.k.a. Jesus myth theory) is fringe, however, I was surprised to learn that many scholars writing about Christ are still sharing some idea with believers. Since a direct google scholar search gives a lot of references to various religious and theological writings, my analysis of what view is majority, minority or fringe has not been finished yet, however, my preliminary conclusion is that the theory that you call "Jesus myth theory" is by no means fringe.", "I still haven't got a ultimate answer for myself on how exactly I am going to edit Christianity related articles." etc.) suggest he is still in the midst of acquainting himself with the content he so fervently contended. It seems he needs he needs to learn from this episode that he should do proper research before 1. demanding other editors justify the current state of a Wikipedia article, 2. talking about rewriting an article / undoing major changes, and 3. coming up with theories like "people who believe that Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus are Christians". Robby.is.on (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – I'm persuaded by Aquillion's arguments, particularly that a topic ban shouldn't be used for "jesus, why won't he shut up?" It takes multiple editors to create a talk page wall of text. If editors don't want to engage with him, they can just ... not engage with him. If he makes a terrible proposal on a talk page, !vote oppose, state your reasons, and be done with it. There's little need for back-and-forth unless you want to engage in back-and-forth; but no one is forced to do that. – Levivich 05:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • He was pretty clearly threatening to impose his fringe stuff on tons of articles. How exactly are people supposed to stop him by not engaging him?★Trekker (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Suppose PS makes an edit someone disagrees with. It can be reverted. If PS reinstates it without consensus, that would be edit warring and could be reported to ANEW. Suppose PS doesn't edit war and instead posts a proposal on the talk page to gain consensus for the challenged edit. Editors who disagree can !vote oppose. One post from each editor, !voting oppose with their reasons, is all that would be needed. Suppose PS responds to those !votes with counterarguments. Editors can ignore those responses if they wish. If the proposal is widely opposed and nobody engages in extended back-and-forth, there will be no mainspace edits without consensus and no talk page walls of text. Problem solved? – Levivich 06:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
      • He couldn't accept it when everyone told him he was wrong on Pontius Pilate's talkpage, he can't even be honest about how he treats people and consensus on this very page. How can we assume it would be any better in any other discussion on the topic? I'm not demanding he be banned, but I want people to come with better reasonsings that "well the complaints are just that he's annoying", because him being annoying is only about 50% of the overall problem.★Trekker (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Although I prefer to respond in a separate section, this time I respond here for sake of my peers convenience. ★Trekker, those responses were de facto not responses at all, because they didn't cite any sources and provided almost zero rationale. To see the example of a real response, look at this. That is a type of arguments I was expecting to see. Had Ermenrich responded in this way from the very beginning, there would be no conflict at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

He didn't respond that way originally because what you were propossing was utterly laughable.★Trekker (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose topic ban as per Aquillion. Paul is opinionated, but he is a dedicated editor, not a disrupter.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I am cited far above (because I commented at Talk:Pontius Pilate) and I think I may possibly be grouped by Paul among those who wrote to criticise his comments on the basis of what other people said. If so, Paul, I'm only a tiny bit hurt :) I hesitated to comment here at all. I found the discussion on that talk page almost entirely off topic, and Paul (among others) led it that way. What would I do? I would advise him to leave Pontius Pilate to others for a while and I would suggest a bit more reading among authors who take varied views of the historicity of Jesus. Andrew Dalby 11:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed and consider extending it to the Soviet Union and communism, broadly construed. What has been demonstrated here is relentless and persistent POV-pushing that has driven people away from the project. I have no faith in this user to constructively contribute to this project Toa Nidhiki05 19:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I too think that he should also be banned from Communism/USSR. His edits on these talk pages are absolutely unreal. T8612 (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• (I already commented above but adding this after some further consideration). Oppose topic ban. Paul's pattern of long talk page discussions is not limited to this topic so if it is a problem, and it might be, it is not one that a topic ban would solve. Paul has an unusual contribution pattern with 64% article talk and 15% on main.[96] Maybe he should reconsider his approach. But Christianity in particular is not the issue. Haukur (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

So what do you propose to make him stop? Permaban? T8612 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know! Maybe nothing for now. But ANI is also poorly equipped to handle big picture long-term issues like this which might require a lot of analysis to get right. Haukur (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you feel there's a better venue for such discussions? (I don't plan on taking it up, I'm just curious. I'm still pretty ignorant about the various options for dealing with behavioral options on Wikipedia).--Ermenrich (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a long standing block? He seems to have been able to do good work on the site despite his biases. Maybe if he got some time off he would realize he needs change his ways.★Trekker (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• I doubt that Paul will be sanctioned. This is the case when different people had very different experience while interacting with Paul. That's because he is very careful, especially when he speaks with admins like Nick-D. My experience was very negative. While interacting with me, he was not shy to summarily dismiss several very strong RS based on his WP:OR [97]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In that case those Admins need to check themselves and not let their personal feelings towards him get in the way of their duties.★Trekker (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Second proposal: Warning

If there is not consensus for a TBAN (which I think there may in the end still be, but assuming the first proposal fails), would there be consensus for issuing some sort of warning? This could then be referenced in any future action at ANI assuming Paul Siebert continues this behavior/spreads it to other Jesus-related articles, as he seems to intend.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I am a little bit puzzled about the possible text of that warning. What this warning should be about? To print less characters? Talk page guidelines set no limits. Not to call someone Christian? Actually, it is easy to implement, but will it have any positive effect, taking into account that I actually didn't do that?

The important result of this discussion is this your post. I am not sure if this argument is strong (I am figuring it out currently), but it is done in a correct way. That is a type of arguments I was expecting to see from you from the very beginning, because this type arguments are used on talk pages I am usually working on. Had you responded in this way from the very beginning, there would be no conflict at all, or the discussion would be much more brief. If you will be sticking to this way of communication, there will be virtually no conflicts in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are not obliged to prove to you that a fringe theory is fringe when you continually dismissed any source presented to as Christian. Icewhiz suggested that the Christ myth theory might be minority, not fringe, and I countered with a RS calling it fringe. Note he says he actually looked at what the sources cited at Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth theory said before though. This is different than you assuming you are right on the matter and ignoring literally everyone telling you that you were mistaken.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see diffs demonstrating that I "continually dismissed any source presented to as Christian". That statement is weird, because virtually no sources were presented during that discussion.

Anyway, Iv'e just demonstrated you a possible exit from an impasse: I am openly saying "Your last argument was good, and it is supported by a reasonably good quality source. I am not sure it is strong, but, at least, it is addressable. If you continue is this vein I am pretty certain there hardly will be conflicts in future." I think, if your real goal is not an escalation of a conflict (I hope it isn't), the conflict may be considered resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And, regarding your comment on Icewhiz: I also looked at that page, and I found it was poorly written. However, as I already explained to you, to direct your opponent to some Wikipedia page (in this tone) is a kind of disrespect: you were supposed to provide a concrete reference and a quote (as you have done above). Before claiming your opponent is not prone to arguments, make sure your arguments are presented in a correct way. Anyway, I hope we started to understand each other better. Can we conclude the conflict is resolved?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

See [98], [99], [100], [101]. I named specific sources from the article bibliography multiple times without any coherent response from you except to say that a passage in Tacitus is fabricated, based on one article by Richard Carrier, and to insist that Jesus is a mythical being without any historical existence.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

the first diff relates to Bond: I posted a question on RSN, and that cannot be interpreted as I dismissed a source. My conclusion was that the source was not good not because it is Christian, but because Bond just briefly mentions this fact in the introduction. That was by no means a detailed analysis of the issue. Other three diffs contain no references at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

For the last time: I was never debating with you about a passage in Tacitus. Whether it is authentic or inauthentic was entirely immaterial to the discussion: we are talking about your allegations that I dismiss sources because they are "Christian". I mention several other authors in those posts. You never once replied on any of them.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Tacitus is irrelevant to this discussion. Why are you returning to this issue again? Are you interested to end this conflict or not?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, you mentioned Alexander Demandt, Helen Bond, and Daniel Schwartz. I picked Bond for more detailed analysis because you quoted her, and I rejected it because she left the question of authenticity beyond the scope. But I didn't reject her because she was "Christian". By the way, do you realise that the very structure of Bond's work is close to what I proposed? She clearly separated a discussion of the Gospels and non-Christian sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Did you read what you yourself wrote? My conclusion was that the source was not good not because it is Christian, but because Bond just briefly mentions this fact in the introduction. You specific asked in the RFN In her PhD thesis, Helen Bond says that the Annals 15.44 are an independent source about crucifixion of Jesus, along with four Gospels. And again Icewhiz, the question is not if this passage is being attributed to Tacitus (I think noone doubts in that). The question is if this source is reliable to support a claim there is a consensus that this passage is authentic. You did not ask if it was a reliable source for the historical existence of Jesus, and given that both people who responded said it was per se a RS, what answer do you think you would have gotten? If I include sources that find the existence of Jesus so uncontroversial that they don't need to prove it, don't you think you ought to have rethought your position somewhat?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this your post sidetracks the discussion. Your original point was that I "continually dismissed any source presented to as Christian". As a support for this claim, you provided the example where ONE source was dismissed by me, and the argument that is was a PhD in Theology was just one of many. Don't you find your evidences shaky?

Let's stay focused on the main topic.

• When my vis-s-vis provide a concrete reference and a concrete quote that demonstrate their point, I always take such argument seriously.
• When someone says "I am telling you for the fourth time you are wrong", I consider no arguments were presented.
• When someone says "Read John Smith", I may either respond to it or ignore it, because the argumentation of that kind shows one's disrespect and does not indicate one's serious attitude to the issue. If Icewhiz does not feel offended in such situation, that is a sign of his very good faith. He is absolutely not obliged to take such arguments seriously. In addition, responces to such posts take more efforts and are intrinsically longer. Remember, one of the accusations thrown against me was the length of my posts; had I responded to all of that, my posts would be even longer.
• Finally, I already told you that this your post is an example of GOOD argumentation. What else do you need?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not taking lessons in you on good argumentation. You're amply showing why I think at least a warning is necessary.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not giving lessons, I am explaining what I see as a good argumentation, bad argumentation and lack of argumentation. I am explaining my position in an attempt to avoid conflicts in future. If you cannot understand that, then, probably, one party really needs a warning. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert and Ermenrich: You both need to stop trying to bludgeon the life out of this discussion and let the community review the situation. GoldenRing (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I find it hard not to reply, but I will resist that urge from now on. I hope other people will consider my second proposal though.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I myself realized the discussion has come to a logical end. I will be busy during next two weeks, please inform me if there will be any news deserving my attention.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You said the same thing yesterday, I doubt this will end anytime soon in all actuality. But I hope for everyones sanity that there can be a beneficial result in some way.★Trekker (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki hounding by 24.47.152.65 continued

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

---

After a terrible ordeal of being relentlessly attacked by 24.47.152.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), they are still following me around Wikipedia. Previously, the user was blocked twice in the span of the previous ANI before it was closed, but the latter took a while to accomplish, and as such, I had all but stopped editing and largely abandoned my Watchlist due to this editor's continued harassment.
Their specific edits at Jabari Brisport are not undoing my direct work or passively-aggressively questioning it (under false pretenses) on the Talk page, and I know all about WP:OWN, but it has to be mathematically impossible for them to have randomly found that page less 5 hours after I was there.
I know they are going to respond to this post and say that 1) I am in violation of not informing them of this discussion on their talk page; 2) add some wikilawyerese about the exact definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING and how what they're doing is ever-so-very-carefully not in violation of that; 3) how biased I am, in that out of the tens of thousands of articles I've edited, two of them are DSA members! Preemptively, 1) I don't wish to communicate with this individual ever and it's cute if they were to suggest I made some edit on the mainspace or at ANI that they were not aware of, 2) maybe, but it's definitely some kind of harassment, and 3) their own ratio of DSA articles edited out of total articles shows a much strong correlation of bias.
I don't know if a block is the answer or what kind of sterner warning they need to leave me alone after two blocks for personal attacks, but on the other hand they seem unable to admit the reasons for their blocks, insisting on conspiracy theories and complaints of suppression. A big thanks to anyone who takes the time to parse through the linked ANI above. The current complaint is just one instance, but builds on the prior months'. JesseRafe (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by User:Shangoman1964

This legal threat was made by Shangoman1964 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) earlier today at Cauley Woodrow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), concerning the inclusion content regarding the subject's father, which is reliably sourced. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yep that’s a legal threat. WP:DOLT analysis, however, indicates that it’s in response to a possible BLP violation. I haven’t researched the reliability of the source, but it should be double-checked in light of DOLT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  The sourcing in my view is shaky. The claim of parentage is sourced to an interview with Gregor MacGregor of the Bristol Post that’s hosted on Watford FC’s website. A quick search elsewhere shows no other sources that could be called reliable repeating that claim: a blog post claiming to interview Martin Patching, the man claimed to be his father, and a player profile on transfermarkt. I would ask whether the claim of parentage is particularly necessary for the article we have—it’s just a passing mention and isn’t deeply embedded in this article or particularly important. Obviously there’s nothing wrong with saying who this guy’s father is if indeed we have the right source. But for my money the source is weak and the claim of parentage isn’t particularly necessary for this article. That said, the complaints of this editor have gone from “Woodrow doesn’t want his father mentioned” to “Patching never played any role in Woodrow’s life” to the current “Patching is not Woodrow’s father.” So I’d take it with a grain of salt. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Indeffed. It's a legal threat and it's not their first. They were warned about this back in May. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The BLP policy tells us to remove this name.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Both he and his father are public figures. I don't see how disregarding easily verifiable information is the right thing to do.★Trekker (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The issue here was a breach of WP:NLT, which clearly occurred. Questions involving the suitability of specific content in the article are probably best addressed on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  WP:DOLT counsels us to look at the underlying issue rather than saying "That's a legal threat, blocked, case closed." Thus it's appropriate to look at the underlying issue to some extent here, at least to the point necessary to determine whether there are BLP issues on the article that need addressing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Why, in the 5 years that this has been in dispute, is this the first time that any discussion of it has been raised on the talk page? Uncle G (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a very good question. But it's not one that belongs here. Unless someone has an issue related to this topic that requires administrator intervention, I suggest further discussion relating to the article be moved to its talk page and this thread be closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, it actually does belong here - there are many edits with an obvious COI trying to remove things they don't like from the article.Lurking shadow (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
      • If you are referring to Shangoman1964, I have blocked them indefinitely. If there are other instances of disruptive editing that are not stale, please point them out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• I see that with no discussion on the talk page, and ignoring the pointer to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in the edit history, ARMcgrath (talk · contribs) has just put the content back in. I've removed the disputed content and fully protected the page. Not using the talk page now is unacceptable. Feel free to unprotect when editors have discussed this on the talk page, as should have happened years ago. Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Uncle G. Given the relatively sporadic, albeit long term, nature of the edit warring; full protection seems a rather extreme reaction. But indefinitely locking the article looks like using a nuke to swat a fly. Just the view from where I'm standing. You may see something I'm missing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm seeing an article where it is long overdue for editors to go to the talk page, and even an explicit pointer to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy does not get them to go to the talk page. Uncle G (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I've reduced the full protection to three days. Preventing anyone from ever editing the page again is an overreaction. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

User talk:QuackGuru/List of diet food creators

Could somebody please take a look at the speedy deletion request at User talk:QuackGuru/List of diet food creators? My removal of the CSD tag has been reverted twice, and my enquiries on the user's talk page have gone unanswered. It may be eligible to for speedy deletion, but I can't work out from the logs whether it was a talk page that should be preserved or not. --kingboyk (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Question - Did you try to reach out to the user whose talkpage you are trying to delete (User_talk:QuackGuru)? I know you said that you made enquiries on the talk page but I just wanted to check if you meant that user's own talk page or the talk page associated with that specific subpage, since he may have overlooked your messages depending on where they were posted. In general, user talk pages are not normally speedy deleted but I can see why it could be controversial in this case just because the associated user subpage was deleted. I agree that it's not clear what that user's intended desire was. Michepman (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, on the user's talk page, with a request to ping me so I could delete it if appropriate. The first rollback happened after that. There was still no response when I visited to leave the ANI notice. -- [please ping me if you need a reply] kingboyk (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Edit to add: My (polite?) messages and the ANI notice have been reverted by the user. (edit conflict)

Thanks, I just saw it. Yeah, hopefully they are just away from their computer at the moment but will respond shortly. (I noticed on their page that it says that they are on a 'break' from Wikipedia). As I mentioned earlier, it is not normal for talk pages to be deleted summarily (unless there's a rule violation or the like) but I can see why there's ambiguity in this case. Michepman (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it's also fairly abnormal to revert admin removal of CSD tags (and to delete their messages without replying :)). Hence thinking it best to ask for another person to have a look. Thanks! -- [please ping me if you need a reply] kingboyk (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The only real "talk" content on that page is what can be found in this version, an unrealized request to a few editors to make a video. It actually seems to have nothing to do with the userpage this is a talk page of, so I'm not sure why the requests were made there, but it does mean that G8 does not apply. Since there is discussion in the page history, U1 does not apply either. I don't think that any CSD criteria apply to this one, but I also don't see an obvious need for the page to be retained. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've deleted the page in question. It appears that it was actually a re-write/update to our Soil article and QG had finished with it. — Ched :  ?  — 04:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Aspenheitz: Disruptive editing and NOTHERE

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

---

Aspenheitz (talk · contribs)

Besides adding uncited information to articles, Aspenheitz has done little else in his fairly short (270 edits) EN-wiki career except add unwarranted WP:STUB tags to fully-fledged articles, moreover at the top of the article instead of the bottom (random sample: [102]). I reverted dozens of these yesterday -- didn't get them all by any means but I got tired. I do not know whence this novel form of disruptive editing stems, but he had already been indeffed from FR-wiki for "Use of an automatic translator despite multiple warnings, refusal of discussion" [103], [104] (plus a bunch of deleted articles [105]), so I suppose he brought his WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE tendencies to EN-wiki instead. He has a talkpage full of various kinds of warnings [106] (he has deleted one of them [107]), including my warning about the unwarranted stub tags [108], but he made sure to defy that warning too and just now added another unwarranted stub tag: [109]. I think he needs to be indeffed as NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

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

203.177.49.226 - continued vandalism

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

---

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:203.177.49.226 has had repeated warnings and has vandalised more pages. Please consider further admin actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.133.53 (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Amaury - Accusing my account of being a Sockpuppet and giving no reasons why

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

---

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

Basically, I was doing some editing on the Descendants page today, and when User:Amaury reverted my edits, she than said my account was a sock without giving any reason why. The only reason (if you can call it a reason) she even gave was "That falls into WP:OSE territory. And sock, in any case." She refuses to listen to me as she keeps reverting her talk page back, no matter what I say (I try to say to her that I changed my username, which I did and that I made this account in 2015, but nothing's working). I cannot even say that i've mentioned her here on her talk page, as she'll revert it back too and i'm not bothering to argue with her anymore in case she falsely reports me and getting my account blocked. Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Have to somewhat agree here. Without knowing the details of Amaury's accusations, I cannot speak to if this user is a sock or not, but the dismissive nature Amaury has shown, both removing talk page posts and reverting with accusations is troubling. Though, while they have reverted your every attempt to communicate Luigitehplumber, you are still required to notify them about this discussion. Please do so now. 2001:4898:80E8:8:AAE4:C751:69FA:FD96 (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

LTPHarry did, User:Amaury deleted it. So we can assume she did see it. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Just so we can get our pronouns straight, Amaury's userpage indicates that he is male. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I figured LTPHarry knew something I didn't about their gender. Alright. My apologies for misgendering you Amaury -- Rockstonetalk to me! 03:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Increasingly concerning that their response is to say "This user has been blocked on another account before as a confirmed sock and has known WP:DE issues, regardless. An explanation is not required when dealing with socks, especially LTAs. Not saying this one is necessarily an LTA, but it's why reverting socks is exempt from 3RR." That's not okay. 2001:4898:80E8:8:AAE4:C751:69FA:FD96 (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Amaury 24 hours for edit warring and casting aspersions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

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

I feel like I'm being gang-stalked and bullied and want to avoid these users

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

---

I feel like there are 2 users who are constantly following me, responding to me when I told them to quit stalking me, edit warring and making up nonsensical reasons for their reversions, and calling my edits subpar and then blocking me but still leaving messages to me. I want them to stop monitoring my edits.

I admit I edit warred in retaliation because the two have been edit-warring with me for the entire week.

I want to make amends and try to mollify the situation, but they continue to harass me by threatening to stalk my every edit and delete my edits if they deem its inappropriate, like they are the judges on what they consider to be acceptable. Nashhinton (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

They keep commenting on my Talk page and accusing me of not refactoring properly.

I will not Dox someone because I believe they deserve privacy also, but I also wondering if there is anyway I can block them? Nashhinton (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. El_C 07:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nashhinton - Who are these two users exactly? Can you list them here? Can you also list the locations where these two users are "edit warring and making up nonsensical reasons for their reversions" and provide diffs demonstrating their behavior? What prompts you to believe that they're actively following you and harassing you? The more information you can provide will help us to look into the matter and take appropriate action (if applicable). Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, what El C said above. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't name them because the guy who is harassing says if I leave a message on his talk page or ping him or mention him by name, he will ban me. Nashhinton (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nashhinton, once again, please stop constantly refactoring. Oshwah, please see here. El_C 07:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

El C is one of them. He keeps saying I'm constantly refactoring, which I'm not. He is refactoring by constantly indenting. Nashhinton (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I suspect there are some WP:CIR issues here. This editor added "Adolf Hitler was an artist" to the lead of Adolf Hitler today, for example. El_C 07:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is that I told you to quit messaging and following me. Reverting edits is okay. But don't expect me not to question those edits without receiving a proper justification.

You can not go around reverting edits without giving a reason, like saying "nope" and then blocking the user which prevents them from achieving consensus. Nashhinton (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) X 4 Nashhinton - There's a big difference between an editor engaging in hounding and harassment of another editor, and an editor who is legitimately looking into the contributions of another user and then attempting to talk to them about their concerns. One is performed for reasons that are legitimate and with the intent on improving the project and attempting to help the other user; the other is not, and is done with disruptive editing or battleground mentality in mind, and with the sole purpose of causing fear, frustration, anger, or any level of hardship upon the other editor. El C and Beyond My Ken were not engaging in malicious and intentional attempts at harassment or hounding. They were looking into your contributions following the discovery of edits that gave them legitimate concerns, making edits and taking actions necessary to resolve these issues, and were trying to bring these matters to your attention and talk to you. You haven't shown any kind of evidence demonstrating that their intentions were otherwise; no diffs showing blatantly uncivil messages or personal attacks, edits or reverts by them to edits that were unnecessary or unambiguously done in order to be disruptive, nothing... Why are you assuming such bad faith on their part? Why won't you let them help you? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No one has been blocked. El_C 07:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Your friend blocked me. He sent me a message saying he blocked me when he refused to answer my question regarding his recent edit on the four horsemen. And Hitler was an aspiring artist, which is a fact. Nashhinton (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please make an effort at indenting. What friend of mine blocked you? Anyway, comments immediately preceding this, such as these, are problematic, I'm sorry to say. El_C 07:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I just double-checked: you have never been blocked. El_C 07:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The "friend" is Beyond My Ken who posted at User talk:Nashhinton#Hello with a request to discontinue posting at BMK's talk. That is not a block. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And my notification to Nashhinton said very specifically that they should not post on my talk page "unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) Hi Nashington. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Indentation. While not properly indenting your talk page posts is not a super serious violation of policies and guidelines (i.e. something which typically leads to an immediate block), it can make a discussion thread really hard to follow if you don't and is considered bad talk page practice. If lack of indentation or bad indentation becomes a real problem, it can even be "fixed" by another editor per WP:TPG#Fixing format errors, particularly if the fixing is done by the editor whose user talk page you're posting on.

As for the tracking of edits, etc., please take a look at Wikipedia:Harassment#What harassment is not. The tracking of another editor's edits is not necessarily harassment if there's pretty good reason to do so. If you've made some edits which have been recently reverted as not being in accordance with relevant policies or guidelines, then it's not uncommon for other edits to check to see whether you've made other similar edits or to watch your contributions for awhile to make sure you don't make any more such edits. The best way to stop this from happening is to make sure your edits are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines; if you start showing other editors that you're no longer making the same mistakes, they will likely stop watching your contributions.

You need to notify other editors if you're going to discuss their behavior here. Even if another editor has asked you (even in not such a polite way) to not post on their user talk page anymore, you are still required to notify them of this discussion. They can "ban" you from their user talk page so to speak, but they can't get you banned or blocked from Wikipedia for posting a simple notification like Template:ANI-notice on their use talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This thread is good example of how bad indentation or no indentation can create problems; perhaps someone can clean it up and maybe that well help Nashington see the difference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This: "You need to notify other editors if you're going to discuss their behavior here."

Contradicts This: "The "friend" is Beyond My Ken who posted at User talk:Nashhinton#Hello with a request to discontinue posting at BMK's talk." Nashhinton (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

El C just sent me this facetious message, and won't leave me alone. "I have warned you 2 to quit commenting on my page and stalking me. Leave me alone." Thanks Nashhinton (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC) — Oh? I received no such warning. El_C 07:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Nashhinton (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I want him banned from my talk page for harassing me. Nashhinton (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

That was on my talk page! And you cannot ban an admin who is looking into your edits, I'm sorry. El_C 08:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't want you banned. I want you to stop commenting on my talk page. Nashhinton (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And how can I mention a person who's stalking me if that person blocked me from their talk page? This site operates like a DMV. Nashhinton (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you compare Wikipedia to the DMV... but you can still file a report at ANI about a person whose behaving inappropriately, even if they formally tell you not to communicate with them on their user talk page or ping them. You just don't edit their user talk page (aside from the edit that must be made in order to notify them of the ANI discussion), and you just don't ping them. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nashhinton - Adding to the reply that I made to you here, you state on this page that El C and Beyond My Ken were hounding you and engaging in battleground conduct, yet it was you who was actually doing this (you even added an edit summary of "nope" to one of your retaliatory reverts against Beyond My Ken because he had used the same edit summary when reverting your edit to Adolf Hitler earlier). This not acceptable behavior, is not what they were doing to you, and it needs to stop. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nashhinton, can you not even try to indent? Anyway, sorry, you cannot ban an admin from your talk page when they are looking into your edits. El_C 08:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is it so necessary to indent when this isn't an article? Nashhinton (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I told you. They were hounding me first and I hounded in retaliation. They've been hounding me for almost 2 weeks, not breaks. It's like they don't sleep. Nashhinton (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Because it shows other readers of the discussion that you're making a reply or response, and to which comment you're making the response to. Not making any indentations at all in discussions with other editors will add confusion to it, and make it much harder for others to read and follow... Also, I need evidence supporting your accusations - that they've been hounding you for weeks. So far, I don't have any at all from you, and I don't believe at all that this is what they were doing... Regardless, because someone is engaging in inappropriate or uncivil behavior towards you does not give you the right or the excuse to do it in return or "in retaliation" as you put it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

They've been hounding me for almost 2 weeks — to the best of my recollection, I've never encountered this user before today and have no idea what they are talking about. El_C 08:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The edit to Adolf Hitler which brought Nashhinton to my attention took place at 14:09, 1 August 2019‎. I had never heard of, run into, or interacted with Nashhinton before that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• OK, here's the deal. Nashhinton made a very poor edit to Adolf Hitler in which he added to the lede sentence that Hitler was an artist. Hitler, of course, was indeed a failed artist, but that's not why he's got an article on Wikipedia. Seeing this edit, and recognizing what seemed to be very poor judgment on Nashhinton's part, I reverted it. I then took a look at some of Nashhinton's other edits, on the theory that poor judgement can be expressed in numerous ways, and, indeed I found the addition of unsourced material, changes which did not improve the article, and similar sub-par edits. These I edited or reverted as necessary, which set Nashhinton off with the claim that I -- and later El_C -- were stalking his edits.

The talk page discussions concerning this can be found:

• here on User talk: Nashhinton
• here, on my talk page; and
• here, i=on El_c's talk page.

As can be seen in these discussions, it was carefully explained to Nashhinton that neither myself nor El_C were "stalking" his edits, we were merely examining them to see if they met the standards required of Wikipedia, i.e. that they were accurate, well written, and well sourced. Nashhinton has, apparently, judging by this report, refused to accept this, and believes that he is being "stalked".

The bitter truth is that if Nashhinton had not had the exceedingly poor judgement to think that Hitler being an "artist" was so important as to necessitate it being included in the lede sentence of Adolf Hitler, he never would have come to my attention at all. Later, of course, Nashhinton expressed that Hitler was a much better artist than Picasso, when, of course, the judgement of history -- like the judgment of the Vienneese authorities -- was that Hitler was a subo-standard artist. I'm sure we all wish that the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts had accepted Hitler, as it might have spared the world of the horror of the Holocaust, but we can certainly agree with them that Hitler as an artist was essentially a postcard creator - which he made his living at for a while.

The bottom line here is Nashhinton seems to think that his edits should not be subjected to examination the way that any edit on Wikipedia normally is, and that, specifically, two editors who have become aware of his poor editing should not be allowed continue to fix them as necessary, because doing so is "stalking". Tjsi is an editor who cited the blurb advertising a middle school textbook as a reliable source, and who feels confident in contradicting the opinions of ... well, just about anyone who knows anything about the subject, that Hitler was a "good artist", "way better" than Picasso. He's entitled to those opinions, but hes not entitled to edit Wikipedia as if those opinions were facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Now, they're deleting every edit I made 9 years ago. This site is a mafia site. We need a revolution against this site. Nashhinton (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC) 08:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Who is they? El_C 08:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably you or Ken. You hate me, but I just want to get along. Nashhinton (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm just the admin tasked with dealing with you today. I don't hate you. That having been said, probably is not good enough. Please do not make unsubstantiated accusations. El_C 08:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Most people I talk to think Picasso sucked. And that was my personal opinion. If Picasso was good, then I'm Da-Vanci because I can draw realistic Anime figures. But beauty is in the eye's of the Beholder.Nashhinton (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nashhinton - If you cannot accept that Beyond My Ken and El C were acting appropriately and based off legitimate concerns, then there's nothing more that any of us can do to help you or convince you, since it's clear that you're not being receptive or accepting the input from uninvolved editors who are telling you this. We might as well move the focus of this discussion from trying to help you to setting expectations with your edits and behaviors that you need to follow at the risk of having administrative action (such as blocking) being taken in order to prevent disruption to the project. You tell me what you'd like, because I think everyone here is done with trying to help and convince you... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And they showed Hitler's drawings to several art critics without telling them who painted it, and all of the said it was good, so screw these elitist art critics. They get bribes from incompetent plutocrats like Picasso to praise their work. Nashhinton (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think there are issues, here. WP:CIR, for certain, but other issues as well. I'll back off and left uninvolved admins deal with this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Repeatedly violating MoS despite warnings & recent block

2405:204:3489:1C82:0:0:10F6:80AD has continued to violate MOS:BOLD and MOS:CAPTION as soon as the recent 48-hour block for the same behaviour expired. The IP has made no effort to discuss the problem. David Biddulph (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

They've now discovered a fondness for adding flags to infoboxes. I've reverted about a dozen. Their most recent addition was almost three hours after I left a note on their talk page asking them to stop. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Continued disruption at Cantonese, again, again.

As was previously reported on ANI, [here] and [here] before that, Jaywu2000 continues to periodically add unsourced changes to population of speakers in the Cantonese article. user:Kanguole, user:LiliCharlie and myself have left numerous messages on their talk page asking them repeatedly to discuss their changes on the talk page, they made a single post to my talk page [here], on 10 July, to accuse us of being "Cantonese haters" (which I found highly amusing being a Cantonese speaker myself) and in effect threaten to sock if they were blocked You can block me all you want, I'm just going to keep coming. Since then, they've continued to try and add their synthesis to the article. More recently, they've given up using the unreliable source and have gone straight for changing numbers irrespective of what the source already says, effectively misrepresenting the source altogether.

• 11 July
• 20 July
• 22 July
• 26 July
• 27 July
• 1 August

Prior to the 11 July edit, they were asked each time to provide a source, but Kanguole (bless their patience) has given up asking and just reverts their edit. At this point, it is obvious we're dealing with an editor whose disregard for proper sourcing and penchant for slow motion edit warring and I would ask for a block. I will be notifying all involved editors shortly. Blackmane (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

My impression is that this person is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and that they are consuming volunteer editors' precious time instead. I agree that a block seems justified. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for two weeks, to stop the disruption. Perhaps he will reconsider his approach, though these edits don't inspire much hope.[110][111] If he continues after the block expires, I would recommend an indefinite block. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Based on the name of the citation (中国语言地图集 （第2版）Language Atlas of China (2nd ed.) i would guess the citation would only supported the number of Cantonese speaker of China. But may be missing the (estimated) figures of Cantonese speaker in Malaysia, Australia and North America, etc.. However, it is not a valid reason for Jaywu2000 to insert unsourced figures to the wiki article, especially insert in-between the figures and the citation. He did stated his figure was copied from ethnologue in his talk page (see Special:Diff/905543170), but i am not sure ethnologue had been discussed in WP:RSN as reliable source or not. And then the personal attack in his talk page (Special:Diff/905582502) had deteriorated my good faith on him. So, yup, he need to learn to use WP:RS and solving the dispute in proper way such as WP:Rfc, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. Or he need an indefinite block to prevent further damage to wiki articles. Matthew hk (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

QAnon-flavored threats from 188.138.234.73

Please see edit to User talk page at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bearian&diff=prev&oldid=909011945

Also vandalism on Susan M. Gordon page https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Susan_M._Gordon&diff=prev&oldid=908982051

PvOberstein (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I blocked that IP address for two weeks for harassment vand BLP violations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)