Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive761

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User Renejs and telling the truth about sources[edit]

If there's anything we don't need in Wikipedia, it is editors who don't tell the truth about sources.revi

User being reported: Renejs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User notified: [1]

Reporter: Zerotalk

Summary: Two incidents show Renejs lying about the contents of sources.

Background: Renejs has been in Wikipedia for 6 years but recently returned after taking a break. Most of his/her edits are to the articles Nazareth and Nazarene (title), where he/she is known for promoting a fringe theory about the ancient history of Nazareth. His/her contribs show an aggressive style with large numbers of reverts. His/her talk page shows many complaints from other editors. There was a complaint of disruptive editing on this noticeboard and one on the 3RR noticeboard that led to article protection.

Incident 1. Recently I noticed the following text with a strange citation in Nazareth:

"However, the hill in question (the Nebi Sa'in) is far too steep for ancient dwellings and averages a 14% grade in the venerated area.<ref>B. Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth, Plate XI, top right.</ref>"

This text and citation was added to the article by Renejs in 2007. I located the source and found that that no such information appears at the stated place, so I removed it with a comment that the source was fake.

About 9 hours later, Renejs reverted me with the summary "The reference is in Bagatti. It's not at all fake. Just check it." I retrieved the source again (it is beside me) and checked that the given information is not only not on Plate XI but not anywhere else in the book either. Then I asked on Renejs' talk page, "I want to ask you if you have verified that 'B. Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth, Plate XI, top right.' is a source providing the information 'However, the hill in question (the Nebi Sa'in) is far too steep for ancient dwellings and averages a 14% grade in the venerated area.'" Renejs replied, "Bagatti provides a chart with the slope of the hill. Measuring that slope provides the information that it averages a 14% grade. That is very steep."

The book is the report of archaeological excavations made in Nazareth. Renejs' reply to my question indicates that he/she knows what is in the source at "Plate XI, top right" but is not telling the truth about it. What appears there is a sketch map of the excavation area, approx 200m by 340m. There are two vertical cross-sections showing a total drop of 16.59m in the long direction (4.9%) and 15m in in the short direction (7.5%). (These drops are written in the source, they are not my measurements.) There is no value of 14% here and in any case the diagram only shows a small part of the nearby hill that has the shrine Nebi Sa'in on it's peak. There is also nothing written about whether the slope is appropriate for ancient dwellings. So Renejs is misrepresenting what is actually given in the source. But he is also misrepresenting the book's viewpoint, since its author is completely confident that ancient dwellings existed there and never says anything else. Since he himself added the material in the first place, he does not have the excuse of trusting another editor too much.

Note that the "slope was too steep" argument is a standard part of the fringe theory Renejs promotes (represented by the book The Myth of Nazareth by René J. Salm) and Bagatti was one of the archaeologists whose work had to be discredited in order to prove the theory. Falsely painting an opponent as an ally is a serious offence.

Incident 2. In this edit at Theudas, Renejs removed the citation "Emil Schürer (1973). The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Volume I. revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Matthew Black (revised English ed.). Edinburgh: T&T Clark. pp. 456, n. 6. ISBN 0-567-02242-0." with the summary "No mention of Semitic etymology of 'Theuda' in the given reference of Schurer." However, Semitic etymology is mentioned exactly in the place indicated.

Scans of both sources are available from me, just send me mail.

If there's anything we don't need in Wikipedia, it is editors who don't tell the truth about sources. Zerotalk 11:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. If there's anything we don't need in Wikipedia, it is editors who don't tell the truth. For example, consider this whopper:
"Recently I noticed the following text with a strange citation" --Zero0000
That text was added in July of 2007 and in the five years it has been there you have made hundreds of edits to the page. Suddenly you "just noticed it" and did not bother to check to see who added it and when? Riiiiiiiight. --Guy Macon (talk)
  • Contrary to your "hundreds of edits", I have edited Nazareth exactly twice, both in the past 4 days. Administrators: Can someone tell such bare-faced lies on this noticeboard with impunity? Notice that Guy Macon reinserted the challenged material after seeing this report, despite admitting that he doesn't have the source. Zerotalk 09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for tracking down when the text and its phony source were first inserted. I didn't realise it was inserted by Renejs! This means he/she doesn't have the excuse of trusting another editor too much. I'll add it to his indictment. Zerotalk 09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── (Goes back and checks) You are correct. I searched for Nazareth in your history from July 2009 to July 2012, and it picked up a bunch of edits that were not to the Nazareth page. It did not occur to me that a person would use the word "Nazareth" so often when editing other pages.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] And even then, I should have said "tens" not "hundreds". I apologize for the error.

I would also note that my revert was proper. Please read WP:PRESERVE and WP:BRD and then ponder why it is that we have a citation needed tag if, as you claim, the only allowable response to a sourcing question is deletion. Reverting to the last stable version before a content dispute erupted is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The statement regarding the slope of the hill and how the slope disqualifies the assertion apparently is not found in the source cited. If that is true then the problem is that of Original Research. If I remember correctly, a violation of Original Research is not protected under WP:PRESERVE. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shootings[edit]

Standard notice about a recent event that will likely draw a lot of traffic and vandalism to the article. --Rschen7754 09:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that's our policy in order to inform readers that it may not be up to date. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Rschen isn't saying that the current events template is a problem; this is simply a reminder for experienced editors to keep an eye on the article or add it to their watchlist because these type of events tend to "draw a lot of traffic and vandalism to the article." Chillllls (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User Renejs and telling the truth about sources[edit]

If there's anything we don't need in Wikipedia, it is editors who don't tell the truth about sources.

User being reported: Renejs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User notified: [12]

Reporter: Zerotalk

Summary: Two incidents show Renejs lying about the contents of sources.

Background: Renejs has been in Wikipedia for 6 years but recently returned after taking a break. Most of his/her edits are to the articles Nazareth and Nazarene (title), where he/she is known for promoting a fringe theory about the ancient history of Nazareth. His/her contribs show an aggressive style with large numbers of reverts. His/her talk page shows many complaints from other editors. There was a complaint of disruptive editing on this noticeboard and one on the 3RR noticeboard that led to article protection.

Incident 1. Recently I noticed the following text with a strange citation in Nazareth:

"However, the hill in question (the Nebi Sa'in) is far too steep for ancient dwellings and averages a 14% grade in the venerated area.<ref>B. Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth, Plate XI, top right.</ref>"

This text and citation was added to the article by Renejs in 2007. I located the source and found that that no such information appears at the stated place, so I removed it with a comment that the source was fake.

About 9 hours later, Renejs reverted me with the summary "The reference is in Bagatti. It's not at all fake. Just check it." I retrieved the source again (it is beside me) and checked that the given information is not only not on Plate XI but not anywhere else in the book either. Then I asked on Renejs' talk page, "I want to ask you if you have verified that 'B. Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth, Plate XI, top right.' is a source providing the information 'However, the hill in question (the Nebi Sa'in) is far too steep for ancient dwellings and averages a 14% grade in the venerated area.'" Renejs replied, "Bagatti provides a chart with the slope of the hill. Measuring that slope provides the information that it averages a 14% grade. That is very steep."

The book is the report of archaeological excavations made in Nazareth. Renejs' reply to my question indicates that he/she knows what is in the source at "Plate XI, top right" but is not telling the truth about it. What appears there is a sketch map of the excavation area, approx 200m by 340m. There are two vertical cross-sections showing a total drop of 16.59m in the long direction (4.9%) and 15m in in the short direction (7.5%). (These drops are written in the source, they are not my measurements.) There is no value of 14% here and in any case the diagram only shows a small part of the nearby hill that has the shrine Nebi Sa'in on it's peak. There is also nothing written about whether the slope is appropriate for ancient dwellings. So Renejs is misrepresenting what is actually given in the source. But he is also misrepresenting the book's viewpoint, since its author is completely confident that ancient dwellings existed there and never says anything else. Since he himself added the material in the first place, he does not have the excuse of trusting another editor too much.

Note that the "slope was too steep" argument is a standard part of the fringe theory Renejs promotes (represented by the book The Myth of Nazareth by René J. Salm) and Bagatti was one of the archaeologists whose work had to be discredited in order to prove the theory. Falsely painting an opponent as an ally is a serious offence.

Incident 2. In this edit at Theudas, Renejs removed the citation "Emil Schürer (1973). The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Volume I. revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Matthew Black (revised English ed.). Edinburgh: T&T Clark. pp. 456, n. 6. ISBN 0-567-02242-0." with the summary "No mention of Semitic etymology of 'Theuda' in the given reference of Schurer." However, Semitic etymology is mentioned exactly in the place indicated.

Scans of both sources are available from me, just send me mail.

If there's anything we don't need in Wikipedia, it is editors who don't tell the truth about sources. Zerotalk 11:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. If there's anything we don't need in Wikipedia, it is editors who don't tell the truth. For example, consider this whopper:
"Recently I noticed the following text with a strange citation" --Zero0000
That text was added in July of 2007 and in the five years it has been there you have made hundreds of edits to the page. Suddenly you "just noticed it" and did not bother to check to see who added it and when? Riiiiiiiight. --Guy Macon (talk)
  • Contrary to your "hundreds of edits", I have edited Nazareth exactly twice, both in the past 4 days. Administrators: Can someone tell such bare-faced lies on this noticeboard with impunity? Notice that Guy Macon reinserted the challenged material after seeing this report, despite admitting that he doesn't have the source. Zerotalk 09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for tracking down when the text and its phony source were first inserted. I didn't realise it was inserted by Renejs! This means he/she doesn't have the excuse of trusting another editor too much. I'll add it to his indictment. Zerotalk 09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── (Goes back and checks) You are correct. I searched for Nazareth in your history from July 2009 to July 2012, and it picked up a bunch of edits that were not to the Nazareth page. It did not occur to me that a person would use the word "Nazareth" so often when editing other pages.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] And even then, I should have said "tens" not "hundreds". I apologize for the error.

I would also note that my revert was proper. Please read WP:PRESERVE and WP:BRD and then ponder why it is that we have a citation needed tag if, as you claim, the only allowable response to a sourcing question is deletion. Reverting to the last stable version before a content dispute erupted is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The statement regarding the slope of the hill and how the slope disqualifies the assertion apparently is not found in the source cited. If that is true then the problem is that of Original Research. If I remember correctly, a violation of Original Research is not protected under WP:PRESERVE. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shootings[edit]

Standard notice about a recent event that will likely draw a lot of traffic and vandalism to the article. --Rschen7754 09:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that's our policy in order to inform readers that it may not be up to date. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Rschen isn't saying that the current events template is a problem; this is simply a reminder for experienced editors to keep an eye on the article or add it to their watchlist because these type of events tend to "draw a lot of traffic and vandalism to the article." Chillllls (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Stungrenade[edit]

Combining these two sections as they're the same subject. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indeffed, see section immediately below. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User appears to be wiki-stalking me and exhibits strange, erratic behaviour. My guess is this user is a previously blocked user considering how much they know about how WP works. Two blatant edit summary violations here [phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stungrenade&diff=503254818&oldid=503254530] and here [23] making a blatantly false report about my username here [24] Vandalism which the user tried to "justify" here [25]. (Not entirely sure why some of the links wont work, may have to copy paste xD) --Τασουλα (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Stungrenade has vandalized multiple times (that's what the warnings or alleged stalking is about). Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to propose an indefinite block here, as Stungrenade appears to be a vandalism-only account. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It's this users erratic behaviour and accusations of slander and libel that worry me the most. Per WP:DUCK this user is most likely a user who has been blocked in the past. And yes, I agree - a permanent block. The users ridiculous attitude warrants one too I think. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Τασουλα[edit]

Stungrenade blocked indefinitely. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 12:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

From the moment I joined up today, user:Τασουλα has not left me alone. The user continues to make innapropriate comments towards me on my talkpage here, which include slanderous accusations of being a blocked user here and here as well, before removing a valid complaint I have made about his username here, note please, the continuation of his abuse and slander in the edit summary. I now feel threatened by this user, as after less than an hour of being registered on this site, he continues to hound me for spurious and unprovable reasons. I request that action be taken to prevent his abuse. Stungrenade (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You're hilarious. I cannot believe you are accusing -me- of wikistalking you. And it is obvious you are a previously blocked user. --Τασουλα (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You are continuing with your slander and harrassment on this page? You truely know no limits to your hatred of me, do you? Stungrenade (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Further slander and lies from this user have been added to the username report. [user claims I have said things which I never did]. Stungrenade (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
He is not stalking you. It's called a vandalism warning. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hatred? I'm following standard procedure, something you are not. I am not slandering you and I do not hate you. Your behaviour is erratic. My original issue with you was with your vandalism over at ITN/C which you got a standard warning for. You removed this as vandalism which is a violation of edit summaries and not assuming good faith. You then went on to file a false report about my user-name. You then admitted it was a false report and when I removed it as such, you restored it even after admitting it was false. You then proceed to accuse me of libel and slander which is completely untrue. It is blatantly obvious you are a user that has been blocked in the past per WP:DUCK. Again, stop with the slander nonsense. You did admit it was a false report! You even apologised, thou I doubt that was sincere. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Please note that I have never, ever "admitted" anything to this user, he is continuing to lie through his teeth. I have never "apologised" for anything either. I am now genuinely fearful for my offline safety, if this user can so easily come up with such blatant and outragous lies about me, what could he do given access to my personal information? Stungrenade (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
[26] I REST my case. This is getting really boring now. I have not threatened you in anyway. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
And you failed to apologise for your wide slander and abuse, so I came here. I guess reading and comprehension aren't your strong point. Shame really, they would be much better talents than your current hatred and grudge holding. Stungrenade (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
No abuse. No slander. I am trying to go through standard procedure but you are making it difficult. And that's just a personal attack in regards to my literacy skills. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
All you have done is abuse me. And until you can actually provide evidence that I have had an account here before (which is not true whatsoever), it is slander. It is also not a personal attack to point out the shortcommings in your reading skills. Stungrenade (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The one edit Stungrenade made in which he wasn't harassing Τασουλα, is blatant vandalism. Obvious vandal/troll who is getting way too much attention here. Just block and be done with it.--Atlan (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Apologies if that edit was a little too...hasty Sgeureka. I've tried to handle this in the best way I can but it is extremely difficult. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Your apology did not cover the slanderous comments you continue to make about me, the harrassment you have subjected me to, the lies you have propogated about me and the generally hostile attitude you have had towards me from the second I became a target for your venom. Stungrenade (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
... really, that's enough with the "I hate you" comments... I don't hate anyone... --Τασουλα (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Clearly you do. There is no reason for you, an experienced editor to be targetting me, someone who is brand new to this site and who just wants to improve it for the benefit of everyone else. Stungrenade (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You are clearly not a new editor! Your first contribution here was nothing but vandalism and all you're doing now is wasting everyone's time. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Prove it. Prove that I have had an account here before. You can't, because it isn't true. Until you can do so, you are slandering me. Something which needs to stop right now. Stungrenade (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"WP:DUCK" - that is my sole basis for this. I have not just come up with it because I have something against you. You have a lovely day now. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggest an indef block as a disruption only account. Clearly a returning user (though who exactly, is not clear.) First edit was a reversing of four people's votes at a discussion and all others have followed from that and demonstrate close familirity with WP processes. I'd block myself, but am currently on a machine that doesn't have Firefox to give me easy access to the tools. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I've blocked Stungrenade for a week for disruptive editing. I am happy to extend or shorten the block according to consensus. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 11:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
A week? What kind of arbitrary length of time is that? All the disruption happened within 2 hours. Just block indefinitely.--Atlan (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
A week seems about right, considering the circumstance. Likely not to be the last block, but we should assume good faith in all things and give everyone a second chance to contribute. Still not holding my breath. Dennis Brown - © 11:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
...And we can try to match this sock in the meantime, which would change everything....Dennis Brown - © 11:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's standard procedure to start off with a non-indef blocked. I'm off to spend time in my garden ^_^, and apologies if I didn't handle this as well as I could of to all those involved. I actually have this distinct feeling that I've dealt with this editor before but under a different username. I have no idea why I get this feeling. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Zip. Although I was going to propose an indefinite block, we'll see what happens in a week. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice goodbye message. Yeah I really want this guy back in a week.--Atlan (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Indeffed per these two personal attacks. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 12:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I've revoked his talk page access for continued personal attacks. See? The system works. Dennis Brown - © 12:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, you got there a second before I did. Ah well, drama over - back to building an encyclopedia. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 12:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evil[edit]

Ok, this is getting ridiculous.

Why is accusing other editors of evil allowed to stand? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you ratcheting this up at ANI again? I haven't cared enough to follow the last incarnation here, but it seems you are digging up edits just to bring up the sequel.Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"Digging up edits"? Those are all in the past 12 hours, not much need to dig here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, 12 hours is not digging up the past. Sarek, quit eating babies and raping nuns. Wait, you aren't doing that. What reason is there to call you evil except as a personal attack? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not in that thread at all, actually.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It is ridiculous (Orlady is at the receiving end of the first diatribe). I hate civility blocks, but this is seriously uncivil. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, Drmies, I agree that it has appearance of being uncivil. You can look at the full discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_6 and fairly deem that it appears I am at fault there. In a larger context of following edits, of Orlady over approaching 5 years, and of SarekOfVulcan in tag-team fashion during the last year or two, and it can look differently. ANI is not the place to have it out, for a long horrible history that I do believe amounts to wiki-hounding and horrible behavior. In which I have lashed out, lashed back at times, and have been punished (often unfairly in my view). It is just more complicated than one new ANI is going to solve, or at least not solve fairly.
If the topic of this ANI is the civility level at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_6, I offer to settle that by dropping out of the discussion there, or being scrupulously civil from now on there. If the topic of this ANI is anything and everything negative that can be said about me, well this isn't the right forum, and SarekOfVulcan should not be leading it. --doncram 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
[EC] When I saw the subheading "Evil", I was pretty sure I knew what the discussion was about. Doncram's attacks on me have gone on for a very long time, such that a civility block wouldn't make a bit of difference. At one point, I even compiled some examples of the verbiage that he had used in discussing me in just one series of WP:AN discussions. Choice entries in addition to "evil" included "consistently hateful", "vast, poisonous negativity", "reckless disregard for truth and for my reputation", "sadistic", "bullying", and "malicious and intellectually dishonest". --Orlady (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC) It does, however, seem particularly ridiculous to be accused of "evil" for requesting the renaming of some categories whose names don't follow Wikipedia naming conventions. --Orlady (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Before dropping out, I urge you to redact the phrases. No matter how much you might feel that some editors are interested in simply poking, you cannot possibly believe that characterizing a differing opinion as "evil" could possibly result in a good resolution.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm going to say this as gently but clearly as possible. If you are incapable of discussing the use of an acronym in a category name without accusing other editors of embodying Absolute Evil, then you lack all sense of perspective. If there's an issue with Orlady, then that issue needs to be addressed through this site's dispute-resolution pathways, not with constant swipes and accusations of hatefulness in random deletion discussions. MastCell Talk 16:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • First of all, I don't condone personal attacks. Secondly, however, I have tremendous respect for both doncram and Orlady. Have worked constructively with both and think they are both great contributors. (No criticism intended of Sarek by not mentioning him; I just haven't worked with him.) I really don't care to get into a "blame" or "fault" game, but the relationship between these good people has been very negative for more than a year. I hate to see Wikipedia lose doncram, who is an incredibly hard-working editor, with yet another block. I don't see him reacting with similar venom except toward Orlady and Sarek. Given the past history, any criticism he receives from Sarek and Orlady is received with extreme sensitivity. I'd really like to see a solution where there is some dis-engagement. Because I believe much of the problems here flow from past hostilities, I'd like to see a solution where the involved parties dis-engage for a time. If doncram, Sarek, and Orlady would be willing to agree to this, I would be willing to commit that I will personally review all of doncram's work over the next 30 days (doing so at least twice a week) if they will step away during that time. If there are problems, I will either fix them or discuss them with doncram or bring them to a larger group at the NRHP project. If I miss something that Orlady or Sarek find troubling, they can discuss it with me. It's a significant time commitment, but I'm willing to take it on in hopes that it might help three very productive editors get back to being productive. Cbl62 (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me, too. Much appreciated, Cbl62. --Orlady (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I could agree to comply with this, with respect to my continuing mainspace work in wikipedia and any related supporting Talk pages etc. Cbl62 would have been welcome to review my work anyhow, as he occasionally has in the past, but I appreciate that he is taking on a potentially time-consuming obligation.
  • However, in the same edit, what Cbl62 proposes does not explicitly address two ongoing actions that Orlady and SarekOfVulcan have launched, one a CFD launched by Orlady which could lead to removal of NRHP architect category from more than 400 articles, in my view causing unnecessary disruption of an ongoing major program of my work, and the other being an AFD launched by SarekOfVulcan that could cause deletion of 14 of my recent articles. About the CFD in which I think SarekOfVulcan has not entered, could Orlady agree to withdraw the CFD (not entirely in her power, but Orlady's request would carry some weight) as long as the 3 categories are restored to hidden type, returning to a previous status quo? About the AFD, could both agree to withdraw their recommendations of deletion of the articles, which would carry some weight with other participants? I would leave it to Cbl62 to make some appropriate statement at the CFD and at the AFD. --doncram 19:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Doncram, if you want to make those categories "hidden" again, I suggest that you make that change (also, it probably would be best to remove the parent categories that I added) and request that the CFD be closed. If any other CFD participants object, they can do so, but I doubt that anyone would object. --Orlady (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I've already gone on record saying "Returning them to hidden status would be a good alternative to renaming them." --Orlady (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

IP reverting edits following making their first edit on Jimbo's page[edit]

This User:109.64.207.52 has been reverting the edits of a number of established users. After being warned I blocked them. They are now editing as User:109.65.205.91. They may be related to User:Nenpog who edited under a number of IPs before being blocked for disruptive editing. Anyway I am away for a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 17:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked .91 for obvious block evasion. 28bytes (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Another one User:79.182.231.224. In the same range as Neupogs other IPs User:79.182.199.172, User:79.182.215.205, User:79.179.224.214 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 18:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
User now becoming disruptive here [27] thus blocked this IP as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 18:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Might need a range block as they simply keep switching IPs User:79.182.196.246 now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 18:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Hopped IP's again, now posting on the talk page as 79.176.213.139 [28] Darkness Shines (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Needs a rangeblock. See below. - Burpelson AFB 20:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing at Talk:Jesus[edit]

Cush topic banned. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As can be seen at the page Talk:Jesus#Is this page running into WP:TE, User:Cush has been engaged in some regular editing questioning the use of sources which are considered reliable enough by major independent reference books that they are used regularly in their articles on the subject. He has provided no reliable sources himself to support his contentions, but simply seems to be declaring that his opinion must be adhered to by some form of personal fiat. Also, as has been pointed out on that talk page, Cush has a fairly significant history of such edits, as History2007 found regarding the number of times Cush has been the subject of two RfC/U's regarding this matter already, as can been seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive, been brought to ANI before several times as can been seen in the ANI archives here [29]. I believe it is not unreasonable for the question to be raised as to whether this individual should be made subject to some form of sanctions, as I myself have already said on the talk page in question. Under the circumstances, I personally believe a topic ban from matters relating to the historicity of Jesus and the early New Testament be considered. I do however acknowledge that my own previous involvement in the discussion might prejudice my opinion, and believe that the matter in general, and the possibility of some disciplinary sanctions in particular, be reviewed by an independent editor before any such action take place. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Some evidence and examples of Cush's behavior:
As JohnCarter has pointed out, when Cush is called to present any sources for his constant assertion that no real Scot- I mean scholar-- accepts the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (or for any of his claims, for that matter), he doesn't put forward any (except for one instance where he linked to a youtube video that is essentially a religiously anti-religious blog).
This is only on Talk:Jesus, and doesn't even begin to cover his similar behavior elsewhere.
As JohnCarter has pointed out, two RFC/Us have been filed in the past, as have prior ANI reports, all to no avail. He was previously indefed for anti-Semitic speech, and only unblocked on the condition that he not use such inflammitory language again, which he later violated anyway. In both instances (and others), he revealed a highly problematic bias on any topic relating to Judaism and Christianity.
As History2007 points out, Cush's insistence that "no reliable historians exist" is similar to:
  • Someone going on the page for earth and saying: "the earth is flat"
  • When asked for WP:RS sources by geologists, they refuse and say: "no reliable geologists exist".
  • Given multiple chances to provide sources by scholars, professors, etc., they refuse and continue saying the same thing with no sources.]
Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I support some type of end to this un-merrygoround. How can the assertion that "no reliable historians exist" be accepted any more than "no reliable scientists exist", unless Phlogiston is real after all. That will be the day. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This debate is long and boring. Not too long ago almost every single person with an education was a believer. Cush's latest edit on the article itself is dated 19:13, 10 June 2012. He has edited the talkpage a couple of times after that. If someone has WP:IDHT problems on a talkpage you can simply ignore them. If that person edits the article without consensus, gets reverted and starts an editwar over it they will be blocked. Arcandam (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
An important question: You say this is only his behavior on Talk:Jesus. Can you provide evidence of his behavior elsewhere on the project, recently, that shows similar problems? Someone saying this kind of thing on one talk page can be ignored, per Arcandum, as someone who doesn't realize we're not a message board. Someone saying this kind of thing across multiple areas, or editing in article space to push this POV, should be topic-banned at the very least. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
We have an article about everything: Historical Jesus. Oh look, a shitload of sources in the section Denial of a historical Jesus. More info can be found here. Arcandam (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
But you are discussing content now when referring to Historical Jesus. Is "just ignore him" a policy? As for your link to Christ myth theory, the first paragraph of that article states "Virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established". So please read before linking. And please do stop being vulgar here Arcandam. This is a family encyclopedia after all. History2007 (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not a family encyclopedia if you are using the word "family" as a euphemism for censored. And I wouldn't recommend reading Wikipedia to people who are offended by the word shit. We even have pictures of it! Please read Wikipedia:Method_for_consensus_building#.22Spoilers.22_may_be_excluded. It is not a policy, it is an essay. Arcandam (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
"Just ignore him" when dealing with just being dumb on a talkpage is in line with the spirit of WP:DENY. Arcandum saying "shitload" or any other swearword not actually used to insult a person is WP:NOTCENSORED. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. But WP:Common decency should still prevail. And WP:DENY is an essay and of no relevance to policy. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it is a cultural difference, it was obviously not my intention to offend anyone and where I am from this word is not considered vulgar. I live in Amsterdam, the Netherlands BTW, the social norms are different here. Arcandam (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not watch Dutch TV, so I do not know how often the nightly news on Dutch TV uses that word. Most US TV networks avoid it, for all I know. History2007 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Warning: links may contain offensive content! The newschannels probably won't use it, but we have television programs like Spuiten en Slikken that would be considered extremely offensive by some. A lot has changed since the days of Phil Bloom. You wrote: "As for your link to Christ myth theory, the first paragraph of that article states "Virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established". So please read before linking". I am not sure why you are mad at me but the reason I posted that link is because that article contained that sentence. Arcandam (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:DENY being an essay rather than policy doesn't mean it's not a good idea, and much of policy and guidelines are promoted essays. Also, on the term Arcandum used, it's really a mild vulgarity. And WP:NOTCENSORED is policy. There are no rules against swearing. Period. That said, if your request on the vulgarity is a polite request not to use that term unnecessarily in conversation with you, Arcandum may or may not agree to your request, but they ought to consider it. In sensitivity to your opinions, I myself will refrain from swearing in this discussion. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. History2007 (talk)
The true issue here is that History2007 tries to own the Jesus article. On the talk page every second or so post is his. And he seems to keep out all who do not share his view on the article and its encyclopedic subject.
Archaeology and History are based on evidence, not on speculation, and not on the authority of any academics. And it does not matter whether a layman or an academic does the speculating. I am not saying that there are no reliable historians. I am saying that historians who provide no evidence are not reliable sources for an encyclopedia. Conjecture, even if is is done by some respected high-profile academic is still conjecture and must be presented as such in the respective articles. Without primary sources (i.e. writings form the lifetime of Jesus from people in his personal vicinity or from people who report about him as there are report about other persons from the same time frame and area) History2007 can claim some "academic consensus" all he wants, but this has no substance. Historians who only reproduce what ancient writers had put down from hearsay when Christianity already existed as a religious group, are not reliable sources by any meaning of the word. And this is not about Jesus as a religious figure, but about Jesus to be established as a real historic person. There is no definitive establishment, and the article must reflect that.
And as for the tendentious editing. I have been here long enough to know that WP has a strong bias towards a religious POV and that many editors tend to insert religious claims and doctrines as facts into many articles. That goes for nearly all articles about persons, places, and events mentioned in the Bible. My suggestion would be that there should be a policy about reliability of sources in the context of articles that are also in the scope of religious subjects. A policy that is much stricter than the current requirements for the reliability of sources. That would solve a lot of problems. ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Cush, the problem is that you seem to see yourself as the arbiter of what is reliable and what is not. Do you have some kind of advanced degree in historical studies that makes you more reliable or authoritative than the historians that are being cited? ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It does not matter if he has an advanced degree or not, but the statement that ""no reliable historians exist" can just not be supported. What if someone insists that "no reliable physicists exist"? Will that cause a problem on the page for physics? It will for sure. Same here. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It won't cause a problem for Wikipedia if someone insists that "no reliable physicists exist", because that person will be ignored by the majority of our users, but if that person is stubborn it may cause a problem for that person because it is likely that person will end up being blocked. Arcandam (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your "it is likely that person will end up being blocked" statement. That seems to be what needs to happen here. One can not keep supporting Phlogiston for ever in an encyclopedia while refusing to provide sources. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
As a note, there is a relevant cleanup tag to that: {{religious text primary}}. It's for use when an article attempts to use a religious text as a source for anything other than what that religious text says. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Funnily enough I do no seem to have edited Christ myth theory for as long as I remember, but it says the same thing. So no ownership issues there Cush, but WP:V issues against you all over the place. So your "content based argument" is not valid. And again, and again, and again, you have never provided any sources for your assertions. Sigh.... History2007 (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── (edit conflict)As the two prior RFC/Us and various ANI threads demonstrate, Cush has a long-term problem when it comes to handling issues pertaining to Judaism and Christianity. I'll grant that he's useful elsewhere, but when religion is involved he's insanely bigoted. In the past he's claimed that mainstream views, if they coincide with religious views, should not be accepted on the site. While he's entitled to hold whatever beliefs he wants, he cannot edit based on those beliefs, just as we do not allow other extremists to push their beliefs on the encyclopedia. There have been calls for topic bans on Cush pertaining to Abrahamic religious topics, and he just waits until the trouble dies down before starting up again elsewhere. For some more examples of problematic behavior over time, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cush and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cush_(second_RFC). It is not simply a matter of him disagreeing with religion that is the problem (again, he can believe whatever he wants), it is his refusal to respect any possibility of objectivity or intelligence from anyone who is not religiously anti-Abrahamic, and his calls to reshape the site to reflect that view. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban to prevent more time-wasting may be a good idea if there is another big war in the mainspace and if Cush is not willing to accept the fact that he is not going to get his way. But it would be kinda cool if we could explain that in a way that is acceptable for Cush. Arcandam (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
On the talk page, we have repeatedly asked him to provide sources. We received none. We tried to avoid ANI, as on the talk page. We did not get far. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we should point out that he's behaving more like the boogey-man religious extremists he imagines all theists are. After all, he has no problem complaining when someone religious presents a claim without evidence while ignoring evidence to the contrary, it's only hypocrisy to then go on and do that himself. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
(multiple e-c's later) Like I said earlier, some of the New Testament sources are considered reliable enough that they are used to substantiate content in existing academic encyclopedias which have no apparent bias in favor of any individual beliefs, like the Mircea Eliade/Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, probably counted as one of the two best reference sources currently available on religion. What it seems we are talking about is, basically, an assertion, which is apparently unsubstantiated, that because Cush doesn't like these sources, we can't use them, even if the leading academic reference sources in the field do. Also, in response to some comments above, I don't know if Cush's problematic conduct has extended anywhere else recently. However, the record of his conduct regarding such material over time is also available, and it seems consistent on this point. Bluntly, I think that, given his failure to reasonably deal with the two RfCUs, his multiple problems which have been brought to ANI and elsewhere, and so on, the time has come for a topic ban on this subject. That is more or less what I said at the start of this thread. Would anyone care to respond directly with their own opinions? John Carter (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Look, the situation is really simple. If you go on the page earth and keep insisting for ever that it is flat, and refuse to provide sources when asked for again and again, and say "no reliable geologists exist" you will get topic banned from geology. Same here. History2007 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic Ban of User:Cush proposed by User:Jorgath[edit]

Cush (talk · contribs) is hereby topic-banned for a period of six months, starting 23:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC), from the subjects of Jesus of Nazareth, the history of Christianity, and the history of Judaism, broadly construed, in all namespaces (except in appealing this topic ban). Violations of this topic ban can lead to the topic ban being extended to an indefinite topic ban and/or blocks. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose the following solution: User:Cush is topic-banned for six months from the subjects of Jesus of Nazareth, the history of Christianity, and the history of Judaism, broadly construed, in all namespaces (except in appealing this topic ban). Violations of this topic ban can lead to the topic ban being extended to an indefinite topic ban and/or blocks. Cush is also strongly encouraged to read WP:STICK, and to re-read WP:V and WP:RS. They are also cautioned that in the future, they should bring up questions about the reliability of sources at the Reliable sources noticeboard rather than making unsubstatiated claims against sources on article talk pages. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Support... but I am not holding my breath that it will not be back here in 6 months and a day. I would suggest a topic ban altogether. He has been on RFC/U and ANI for far too long and we have repeatedly offered him the avenue for using sources I do not think anything will change in 6 months. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Given his other edits, I'm willing to hope he's smart enough to learn from this experience that while we accept editors regardless of their beliefs, extremism for those beliefs (whatever they are) is not accepted here. If he does fail to learn from this, we'll have this to point to and something'd better be done about it then. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not just "belief" but WP:RS sources. The point is that we have used the WP:RS/AC mantra for long, to no avail. History2007 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you misinterpreted: Ian.thomson was referring to Cush's extreme belief that those sources are not reliable. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I am sorry. But still, sources should rule. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have copyedited the proposal to say "namespaces," which is what I meant to say, instead of "mainspaces," for which I Facepalm Facepalm. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support But I think we should extend it to anything under the scope of WP Christianity and WP Judaism. His tirades have not been limited to just Jesus, and the History of Christianity. He has called all theologians frauds as well as called the entire Hebrew Bible prior to the divided kingdom religious folklore. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, the accusations were more than "folklore," which could have a historical basis but is more important for non-historical matters (and thus is the term I would personally use off-site to describe a lot of the Tanakh). He dismissed it more as complete fantasy, and from there dismissed any secondary sources that mention the Tanakh without calling it fantasy. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but I might propose changing the subheading name to "proposed topic ban of Cush" or something similar to make it a bit easier to find if, for whatever reason, it has to be found and referred to at some point in the future. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Extremism doesn't further the building of an NPOV encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Belief or non belief, extremism exists from all sides of any issue. Cush's editing is inappropriate. I support an indefinite topic ban, with the option to appeal, on all religious topics.--v/r - TP 23:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I would prefer an indefinite ban from articles relating to early Christianity and early CE Judaism with the option to appeal after a year myself. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I would support that too: Indef topic ban, with the option to appeal after a year. History2007 (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a good solution too... but I think it needs to be expanded to Christianity and Judaism as a whole. He has shown radical bias against not just early or historical perspectives, but contention against all of those who hold those religious views. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Should we end up here again after the end of the ban, the next one will probably be indefinite, but I hope Cush changes his attitude towards mainstream academic sources (at least on Wikipedia). Huon (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban. Normally, topic bans are only imposed on highly disruptive editors who for instance edit war. Going by Cush's editing of Jesus and its talkpage — I haven't looked further afield than that — I really can't agree that they're being disruptive or unreasonable. I have trouble understanding the repeated IDHT accusations, and they certainly haven't edit warred. They has a POV, yes. So do John Carter and History2007. As somebody pointed out above, the last time Cush edited Jesus was 10 June 2012; even if their editing were disruptive, would 19 July be a good time to topic ban them? They have edited the article 8 times altogether, not disruptively as far as I can see, spread out between February and June of this year. See this page for the article's overall editing stats (History2007 is by far the most prolific contributor). Cush has contributed many more times to the talkpage (54 posts in 2012 (and altogether), last time 11 July) than the article; but topic banning or restricting people from talkpages is an extreme measure which should be kept for extreme circumstances. Disagreeing with the majority of the editors of Jesus is not an extreme circumstance.
I agree with Cush (above) that History2007 is a dominant presence at Jesus and its talkpage. It's scarcely too strong to say that s/he owns the talkpage by force of the number, volume, and repetitiousness of their posts. While I wouldn't call him/her "disruptive" either, these stats impel me to propose a polite request to him/her to practice a little voluntary restraint. 350 posts to that talkpage in 2012 means an average of two posts a day, every day, for the past six months. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC).
If you read my user page, you will see that I am becoming less active on Wikipedia. And that I had stated on talk that it would be best not to end up here. And your inference about "an average of two posts a day" is flawed logic, because there can be several posts on one day in a conversation and no post for a few days by any user (say July 11-18 2012), and a single statement may have 4 edits as typos are corrected, etc. But, given that you astutely observed that I am not disruptive, I will quit Wikipedia when I feel like it, at my pace, after I have tied up all loose ends, and added references when they are needed, not before. But rest assured that I have lost faith in the project. WMF just started a travel guide... when most encyclopedic items are far from sourced, with more glaring errors than one can count. Next step: a 3 way merger with Facebook and Tripadvisor.com. Way to go...Yet Cush's behavior is inexcusable. I hold to that one... And I view your defense of "source free behavior" as unacceptable. This type of waste of time debate about fringe views only hinders the lost dream of an error free encyclopedia. So do not support source free behavior. Go on physics and say "no reliable physicists exist" and see what happens. Try that one, ok? Just try that one. History2007 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I would also note that, with Johnbod, History 2007 has gone through an extraordinary amount of effort to get the article up to GA status, recognized or not. In fact, if you check the talk page, you will see I looked at the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which is counted by the religion field as one of the two best reference works in the field (there's some argument about whether it or Brill's Religion Past and Present is better), and found only a very few, rather slight, variations regarding Jesus in other faiths. And, yes, the article is, whether we like it or not, probably one of the central points of POV pushing in wikipedia, and regularly subjected to "my side says this" edits. I would not fault History2007 for commenting as often as he has. Other editors would have just reverted or used the user talk pages of editors involved. If anything, I think the frequency of his edits to the talk page may well indicate that he has held himself to a higher standard than most other editors, including admins. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, this thread is not about yours truly, but Cush. So let us not get sidetracked. Anyway, I will stop watching here for a while. I have had enough of this repetitive, and obvious issue. History2007 (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
History2007, you must have missed the word "average" in there when you called my statement that "350 posts to that talkpage in 2012 means an average of two posts a day" "flawed logic". It's the simplest of arithmetic, not what I'd call an "inference". As for what this thread is about, are you familiar with WP:PETARD, an essay much cited on this board? A common statement on noticeboards is 'this isn't about me, this is about them'. There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is 'changing the subject' and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny. Anyway. I don't mean this in a bad way, John Carter, but you're not exactly an independent voice in your intepretation of History2007's massive posting as a sign of virtue. Do you regard his apparent compulsion to respond to every objection here on ANI in the same light? I'd be interested to see someone without a dog in the fight engaging with the points I made. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

─────────────────────────

Except that you've hardly demonstrated misbehavior on History2007's part. If you provided some diffs showing that his messages have WP:OWN problems, or that he was inserting biased sources into the article, or misrepresenting sources, etc, etc... then you might have something. As there's plenty of posts, it shouldn't be hard to build a case if there is one. Until you do so, the explanation that he's simply working hard to make the article a GA is the most reasonable one under WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
While I haven't been very active on Talk:Jesus, in my interactions with History2007 in other places he has always been an exceptionally knowledgeable user with supreme knowledge of the relevant sources and the willingness to bring articles in line with what these sources say. If there's any flaw in his conduct, it's a short temper when Randy in Boise pushes his private pet theory. Regarding the number of talk page edits: As he said, he tends to use several edits to get a talk page comment just right where I would use only one (and typos be damned). I'd expect the number of independent edits is much lower than two per day. Even if he really wrote an average of two posts per day, I'm with Ian.thomson: So what? Huon (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not even see a need to respond to Bishonen further, given that in his opening statement he acknowledged (I said astutely so) that my posts have not been disruptive. So I posted on there and I have not been disruptive. So what? History2007 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This thread is not about History2007. If you want to make a complaint about History2007, you are more than welcome start an ANI inquiry regarding that, but please stop trying to distract from the discussion at hand by shifting the focus off Cush and his behavior. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This thread is about the events surrounding Cush's behavior, including the behavior of all of those involved such as History2007. The argument "this isn't about me" is pointless and will generally be ignored.--v/r - TP 14:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. - have any of you posted on History2007's user talk page, and have any of you raised issues about History2007's behavior in an appropriate venue before coming to WP:ANI with the drama? Elizium23 (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page" - None of us have posted a grievance. We are discussing the grievance that John Carter posted which to be investigated and acted on appropriately and with all information weighed and considered requires inquiry into each individual participant. But now you and I are both just wiki-lawyering and again, it's just going to be ignored as an attempt to derail any scrutiny of the OP and other participants. Rule of thumb: do not bring issues to ANI unless you yourself are ready to be put in the spotlight.--v/r - TP 15:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

However, no evidence has been provided for the accusation, no matter how much it is asked for. That is why this needs to be dropped, unless someone has a nice diff to show. Even then, that does not dismiss the case against Cush. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. The user doesn't seem to understand the principles of WP:RS or WP:NPOV. His behaviour is disruptive enough to justify a topic ban, in my book. If he shows willingness to abide by policy in the future, maybe it could be lifted later down the road. Right now, there's no constructive reason for him to remain an active part of that talk page, or any related ones. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support editors get patience while they learn what reliability is. This, however, is a case of disruptive IDHT. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I see a total inability to adhere to NPOV. While I don't think it is intentional, that doesn't change the fact that it exists. While I don't normally like solving conflict through topic ban, I think it is the only real solution in this case. Trusilver 07:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Meh These articles will always attract editors with strong beliefs. The content squabbles (for lo! that is what they are) involved here are rehashed arguments that have been going on for some considerable time, and neither Cush nor History2007 have covered themselves in glory by the way they are interacting with other editors. pablo 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Arguments given are simply not sufficient, or at least should not be, to apply a topic ban. In this I agree with the post made by Bishonen, there are only a few edits made by Cush on the Jesus article and these do not appear to be highly disruptive or unreasonable. Topic banning someone for activities on a Talk page is an extreme measure which should be reserved for extreme circumstances and this is not it. This ban attempt appears to be little more than a group of editors with their own POV trying to hound out an editor who they believe has an opposing POV. A bit more (religious) tolerance wouldn't hurt.--Wolbo (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for admin closure based on consensus[edit]

The last vote here was cast about a day ago and there have been no major discussions about the user in question since then, although peripheral discussions have taken place about the statistics of how often I type on a talk page.

Yet, statistics aside, the existence of consensus for a ban here is clear: the reasoning among the ten users who support it is uniform and no one is even debating the issues about the user in question any more. And the supporters amount to 90% of those voting. That looks like consensus to me.

The only discussion in the past day has been about my talk page statistics, yet all those commenting have considered my edits non-disruptive. As stated by others, if someone has an issue with how often I post on a talk page they can, of course, start a new thread below and say "this fellow types too much" and we can discuss that. No problem at all.

However, the current proposal for a ban seems to have clear consensus and should likely be concluded so we can move on. The length of the ban should, of course, be determined by the closing admin based on the comments above. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As you know, consensus is not decided on !votes. If there is still discussion happening, then there is reason to keep this open. If you don't like folks discussing your behavior, then I am inclined to review my !vote and investigate your behavior a little more closely. I'd suggest you just quit while your ahead and let this thread develop on it's own without you trying to steer it in a direction you prefer.--v/r - TP 14:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you should stop puffing out your own chest and relax a little bit. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I've nothing here to 'puff out my chest' for. I'm uninvolved. When a directly involved person tries to close a thread after two days of discussion when the attention starts to shift toward them, I get curious. Please don't attribute an emotion to me that doesn't exist.--v/r - TP 15:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI TP, the reason I wanted to get this over with (and had hoped we never started it) is that these things eat my/your/everyone's time (i.e. life) like Pac-Man. ANI is an amazingly time consuming endeavor. History2007 (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I can understand that, but my advice would be that if you've said all you mean to say then just leave it be and let it flow naturally. It's already leaning toward a topic ban, there is no need to hurry it. I won't be surprised if some wandering admin closes it today on their own.--v/r - TP 15:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I will do that. History2007 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unwarranted Deletion[edit]

Hello,

This is SupremelyYours. I tried to submit a professional and unbiased contribution to the article of Lady Gaga, and this was removed on the grounds of an account named "Tay" finding that adding information on natural gas fracking is irrelevant, grammatically incorrect, and unrelated to the section of "Political activism". Please note that my contribution was about Lady Gaga recently signing up in support of an activism website of celebrities opposing natural gas fracking. "Tay", and another account called "Drmies" (whom remarked that my information was "tangential" to political activism), both commented that I needed to cite reliable sources. I cited three in response, directly inserting those sources into the contribution. I was not making a brand new section, I was making a sub-section for a section already in existence.

"Drmies" felt my addition was irrelevant because we cannot add everything to an article, which would make sense to me if I wasn't adding information that was perfectly related to the section of "Political activism", and natural gas fracking is a hot topic that I was revealing Gaga's position on in a short contribution.

"Tay" and "Drmies" were at least professional, though I didn't see their reasons to remove my addition. "Tay" ended the conversation by saying that I might have my editing abilities "blocked" due to "disruptive editing"; oddly enough, "Tay" had accused me of "vandalism", and later admitted I hadn't vandalized anything, even though falsely accusing someone of "vandalism" is also mentioned as wrongful doing in the disruptive editing article. Even after admitting I hadn't vandalized, Tay accused me of such again.

I would like the consistent deletion of my contribution to stop. I have always been a thoughtful and careful editor, and author of two articles, for this website. I am offended by the idea of having my editing abilities "blocked" when I have only worked to preserve the good in Wikipedia and improve the site.

I thank you for reading this appeal. I have disclosed the exchange between myself and the two other editors below.

Yours Truly, SupremelyYours — Preceding unsigned comment added by SupremelyYours (talkcontribs) 04:53, July 19, 2012‎ (UTC)

There was text here copied directly from SupremelyYours' talk page. Elektrik Shoos removed it and put a link here instead for the sake of brevity.

  • I've removed the text copied from your talk page, as it doesn't need to be copied, you can just link to it as I did above. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • A couple of problems -- it's an article about a living person, and you're trying to use "beforeitsnews.com" as a source. User-generated sites such as that are not acceptable sources for BLPs (please read the policy link). Also, if all she's done is "signed up in support" is that seriously important enough for an entire section in a biographical article? By the way, as this is a content issue, you should discuss it on the talk page for the article. Oh, and what you did is certainly not vandalism, unless there was another edit I missed. No one should be accusing you of that. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The brevity of my contribution was certainly not more than a hair shorter, at the most, than the immigration sub-section. Also, no it is not seriously important enough for its own section, which is why, as I said in my appeal, I didn't make my own section for it. I was putting in a sub-section on her political activism. If there is a reason why a political topic cannot be covered in "Political activism", I would like to know, but why refer to it as a "section" when it wasn't? --SupremelyYours (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Because you made it a section not a subsection. You'd need three equal signs (===) around the header text to make a subsection. Notice where it appears in the TOC (5 Natural Gas Fracking). If you feel this is important enough to include in the article you need to discuss it on the article talk page, not here, since ultimately it is a content dispute. Is there something you would like an administrator to do? Also please read WP:BRD; if you insert something, and another person removes it, rather than inserting it again and again you need to get consensus for its inclusion on the talk page, or at the very least make your case there before attempting to put it back. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The inputting was done repeatedly, mostly, due to the fact that Wikipedia was running very slow in uploading the change, so I assumed something was wrong with the upload each time it didn't appear. It wasn't until later that I saw it was an editor taking it down. I did put the addition back in a few times after talking to the editor, feeling that all disputes were discounted or resolved, and yet it didn't seem to make any difference to this person and it was pulled as the correspondence kept on. I feel this issue, which I honestly didn't anticipate would be problematic, isn't worth any more time from anyone. But, please, if all a contribution needs is the deletion of one bad source, or a couple more = signs, to make it correct, then it would be much more efficient to just make a couple of small edits like that instead of automatically pulling it down. Of course, Antandrus, I know you weren't the one pulling it down at all. Let's try a little simplicity in fixing simple problems from now on, and let's also not worry about this dispute any longer. --SupremelyYours (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

RM bot inactive[edit]

Taken to VPT. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This bot, which maintains the list of requested moves, suddenly stopped working after 17:30, 18 July 2012‎. I'm asking this group if anybody knows how to kick start the bot. I recall the bot has been stopped before: Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 7#RM bot inactive, but it seems to be a different problem this time. The last request to be processed, Talk:2012 Damascus bombing, seems to have been redirected or moved after its move request was submitted, so possibly may be the culprit that crashed the bot (if it crashed) – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems to happen every now and then. Bit irritating, but I'm sure things will be resolved in time. The bot op, HardBoiledEggs, has been notified of the problem. Jenks24 (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Best not to rely on the bot op to fix it, as their last edit on Wikipedia was 18 February 2012 – we could be waiting a long time. The earlier problem I linked to was resolved without the bot operator's help. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
As per Wbm1058, the last edit was to 2012 Damascus bombing which has now moved. However, a request I posted yesterday was processed by the bot, just not posted on the RM page. So the bot seems to be partially working still. If 2012 Damascus bombing crashed it, could temporarily recreating the page fix it? I'm thinking of quick fixes as we now have a broken bot without an op, and an increasing backlog. MatthewHaywood (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
There is perhaps what might be called an edit war between 18 July 2012 Damascus suicide bombing, 18 July 2012 Damascus bombing and July 2012 Damascus bombing. They certainly are not waiting for the RM process to come to consensus before moving and redirecting the article. I don't know for sure if this is the problem, but it is the last request that made it to the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions page. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
So if I create a 'new' page at 2012 Damascus bombing, and then make an identical move request on its talk page, could that kickstart the bot? I'm no expert on these things, but it seems to be worth a try as the bot is still working as far as modifying talk page requests goes. As I said before, quick fix... MatthewHaywood (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I very much doubt the Damascus move broke anything. Articles are moved quite often while still listed at RM (probably more often that they should be) and I can't recall it ever breaking anything before. Matthew, the Replica Titanic RM has not been processed at all; it isn't listed at WP:RM and that's all the bot does. Jenks24 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I posted the standard move request, and it was modified to what you can see on the talk page now. Surely this is a bot at work? MatthewHaywood (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
No, my mistake, there isn't a bot edit in the history. The standard request notice must be modified before it is posted, somehow. No activity at all from RM then. MatthewHaywood (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I've seen others say that the RM bot did that as well. But I think it's just template transclusion. This simple edit jump started the bot in the previous incident I linked above. It could be something as simple as that. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Think you're right about the transclusion, didn't know much about that. Can't say I understand how the previous incident managed to crash the bot, how did it know that new1 and new2 were the wrong way round? More to the point, what crashed it this time... are we still looking at 2012 Damascus bombing? It would make more sense to say it was the move request which came immediately after that which did the damage, ie. the first request not to be posted up. How are we going to find and correct it as per the previous incident? MatthewHaywood (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, one-time Wikipedia:Substitution, not transclusion. I'm no expert on it either. you could be right about the next request. The previous incident didn't crash the bot, rather it was misbehaving—and not posting new requests. I don't know how to tell it it is running or crashed, but apparently no admin has blocked it, as happened in the prior referenced incident. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh true, as in "{{subst:requested move". Anyway, I've been trying to put together a search to find the request made immediately after 2012 Damascus bombing, searching in the namespace talk with the terms "requested move" "18 July 2012" . 128 results. Is it worth sifting through them, or is there a better way of finding it? MatthewHaywood (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've tried, but I can't find the request which has affected the bot. Just to clarify after this long string: RM bot has been down since 18 July, and therefore no new Requested Moves are being processed. The user running the bot has been inactive for months. I'm out of my depth, and no-one seems able to sort it out. Without the bot the Requested Move process is inoperative, across the whole of Wikipedia. Can anyone assist us here? MatthewHaywood (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if this is an admin matter. Have you tried posting about it on WP:VPT? Perhaps someone there can jump in and help re-activate or fix the bot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I've added a notice at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#RM_bot_inactive. Thanks. MatthewHaywood (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continual harassment by Youreallycan[edit]

I just blocked Yourreallycan for a week on an unrelated matter, and I expect he and his mentor will have words. This should give everyone the time to cool down. — Coren (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Youreallycan has been blocked on many occasions in the past for harassment of other users. I recently blocked him for harassing another user on his talk page (and then proceeding to bring it to ANI and edit war over the closure of the thread), a block that, while obviously warranted, I eventually allowed another admin to undo because the whole process regarding the issue was shady (I should have asked for another admin to block on ANI rather than performing it myself).

A mere week later, history is now repeating itself and he has now taken to not only harassing me on my talk page,[30] but edit warring over it [31], then harassing via gravedancing of Fae, an editor he had a dispute with, and edit warring over that addition.

Youreallycan is not listening to requests that he stop his behavior nor has he learned from his mentoring. Together with the long-standing history of drama that this user gins up, he has become a net-negative on the project. I request that this Youreallycan is blocked for an extended period of time or indefinitely. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: Not that it's relevant to the subject, but because it will certainly come up: I do not respond to questions (on my talk page or elsewhere) which are worded at me in an aggressive manner, as this one was to me. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan notified. -- Luke (Talk) 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Crikey! If you'd given me more than 30 seconds... Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs)
This really is a poor report, allegations of Harrasment are serious indeed - and one that you failed to notify me of - Your continued allegation of "grave dancing" in regards to Fae is undue indeed - additional detail - User_talk:Youreallycan/YRC2.0#Reverting_user_talk_pages - Youreallycan 16:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Please don't accuse someone of failing to notify you 3 minutes after their edit was saved. That's just unrealistic. All sorts of real life events can cause delays. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
In fact, the accusation was made after Magog did notify him [32]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

While I thought YRC's comment to Fæ was in poor taste, Fæ seemed not to have a problem with it, so I think that part of this thread, at least, can be laid to rest with no further action. Why YRC thought it wise to edit-war on Magog's talk page to reinstate comments Magog removed is a bit of a puzzle, though. YRC, you know you're not supposed to do that, right? 28bytes (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Youreallycan/YRC2.0#Reverting_user_talk_pages - Youreallycan 17:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, well "I only replaced it once" is not quite what I'm suggesting you do. 28bytes (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"I only replaced it once after he removed my complaint about his actions without even a edit summary and when I replaced it I added a question - he just deleted it again without an edit summary and as the user/admin Magog the Ogre had escalated to revert warring on another page I stepped back" - this worthless attacking report is a shame on the user/admin User:Magog the Ogre that opened it - Youreallycan 17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
So, if I understand you correctly, you are the victim of an ogre-attack? Sounds unlikely. Arcandam (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Your comments are unhelpful. Dennis Brown - © 17:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Irony is helpful Arcandam (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment - FYI I wrote this up before Fae had responded (I was hoping the issue would be resolved in non-admin channels, so I wrote it up and let it sit for a while before posting). Fae is certainly taking the high road, which he is certainly not obligated to do, and that is noble of him. I still have my opinions about the way YRC handled that (I think it's textbook gravedancing), but I suppose we all could also take the high road on the matter and not pursue them. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - @Magog the Ogre - Your inability to accept how wrong you were after I and the user in question had commented against your position and your apparent inability to accept and update your position reveals your total failure in regards to this report - Youreallycan 17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Did you read WP:NOTTHEM? Arcandam (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair warning, YRC: I have been defending you here but that comment was not really helpful. Don't push away your allies. --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither editor here has been blameless and there's clearly a personal history between them. Neither one has really done anything all that terrible, either. A one-sided indefinite block sounds excessive. There are much less restrictive things that could solve the problem, such as a temporary interaction ban. --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you please be so kind to post some WP:DIFF links? I am especially interested in the "Neither editor here has been blameless"-part. A indefinite block may sound excessive, but a long block would be a good idea, check the blocklogs. Arcandam (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Was reverting YRC's comment really necessary? I think YRC had a right to question the appropriateness of being told to "grow a backbone." And I think Magog's characterization of one revert as edit warring was an exaggeration. Magog also intervened on Fae's talk page when it doesn't appear he had to, as Fae took the comments in good faith and YRC actually ended up leaving very civil comments.[33] If anything, Magog was edit warring just as much as YRC. Then reporting this to ANI and suggesting an indefinite block just didn't seem proportionate. --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I should add that the previous blocks for incivility are not irrelevant, though. YRC should take extra caution to avoid confrontation. --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene: YRC has been renamed, here are his old blocklog and his new blocklog. Arcandam (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Arcandam, everybody knows that; Rob has never made a secret of it. If you want to start a case against him, an RfC/U is a more proper way to go than adding on to an ANI thread which seems to be winding down. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • To be fair to Arcandam, I actually was not aware of this fact. --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
As has been commented - if you feel there are issues - open a RFC user - all of these previous issues have been previously dealt with and blocks and unblocks resulted - this specific ANI report by User:Magog the Ogre has imo no value at all - Youreallycan 18:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
We will all be back here in a week to discuss your behaviour again if we don't deal with it now. Arcandam (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
As has been commented - if you feel there are issues - open a RFC user/drama fest (I get blocked when I violated policy and I doubt strongly I am a net loss to the en wiki project would get consensus) - all of these previous issues have been previously dealt with and blocks and unblocks resulted - this specific ANI report by User:Magog the Ogre has imo no value at all - there has been no harassment at all - Youreallycan 18:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do repeat yourself, that is very helpful. Repeated short blocks haven't helped you to change your behaviour. So we should probably try a longer block. Arcandam (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. You are obviously not a net positive to this project. Many experienced editors have spent quite a bit of time to try to help you. There have been many noticeboard discussions about your behaviour. We could've spent this time more productively, for example by improving Wikipedia.
I am not seeing any sarcasm - I am stating my case and will continue to do so - please sign if you are able - lol Youreallycan 18:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I did sign, please stop adding {{unsigned}} to my signed post. Arcandam (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Request - Requesting this report be closed - there is no evidence been presented to support the reporters claims and request for admin action - Youreallycan 18:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Binksternet's post shows an abundance of evidence. The question is: will the future offer us more? The answer is surely yes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support block I have been thoroughly unimpressed by YRC's behavior on this thread. I thought Magog's initial report was unnecessary, but YRC is apparently having fun with ROPE. Indefinite is still too harsh for me, but a block is warranted. --Jprg1966 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support block indef or long. Arcandam (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not only do draconian solutions not work, in this case I rather think MtO has been in over-reactive mode. Fae and YRC have an interesting relationship - but that is not one where MtO should have berated "gravedancing" per the actual edits. Admins who pride themselves on not answering questions are, moreover, likely to engender confusion and bewilderment. Meanwhile, harassment, as a rule, is an ongoing behaviour - and the case at hand does not meet that necessary condition. BTW, blocks are not punitive, and are absolutely not given for having been blocked before - which may enter into length of a block for which actual current reason exists. In the case at hand, such a precondition has not been met. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Please take the time to read the links provided by Binksternet. WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR are both excellent reasons for a indef block in this case. Arcandam (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that MtO overreacted, but consider the contrast in the way the two users have reacted here. I critiqued MtO's report and received no undue attention in response. YRC has by contrast needlessly entered the fray, in the worst ways possible. --Jprg1966 (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support block Any length One week time out for some introspection. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Block of 1 month, but not longer. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support block: Youreallycan is well-intentioned and his contributions are often useful. Periodically he goes over the line and becomes unreasonable. I can't think of any way other than a block of getting his attention, unless he will volunteer something. If he doesn't make any appropriate offer here to change his behavior, I would support a block. The great length of his block log suggests he should be open to a concrete proposal to change his ways if he wants to remain active on Wikipedia. If the community choses to ignore this problem they are sure to get more of the same. His above request for this report to be closed suggests an unwillingness to cooperate in any way. The next longer reasonable block would be for one month, barring any sincere negotiation. Looking at his old and new block logs there seem to be 19 genuine blocks. An RFC/U should not be needed for someone with such a huge block log. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support block -- no awareness that the edit-warring was inappropriate, and we all know that without an extended time-out the disruption will continue and we'll waste more time on this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - FYI, I will be glad (