Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction

WP:CN redirects here. It used to redirect to Wikipedia:Common knowledge.

WP:CN redirects here. It used to redirect to Wikipedia:Common knowledge.

Community ban request on User:GordonWatts

GordonWatts (talk · contribs) is a single-issue account whose single issue is Terri Schiavo. Through his entire time on Wikipedia, he has been vexatious, disruptive, argumentative, and intent on pushing his version of events on any all articles connected to Terri Schiavo. Things had stabilized after he went away about a year ago, but he's back with the same act. His latest is to press beyond all reasonable standards for the inclusion of external links to his personal Geocities/AOL Homepage websites, calling the newspapers on par with the New York Times -- or maybe even better, since he claims to be an authority. Despite universal opposition -- except for the brief resurfacing of an old POV-pushing comrade from the worst of the Terri Schiavo edit wars -- that the links utterly failed external link policies, he persists with disruptive, vexatious, long-winded, barely-connected-to-reality and garishly colored* elaborations. Check out the talk pages for Talk:Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case and Talk:Terri Schiavo and you'll see what I mean.

His cranking out of thousands of words of his self-serving (helping to fill 40-odd pages of archives), garishly colored nonsense -- supported by (almost) no one -- filling up the talk pages is disruptive and distracting. It always has been, it is now, and -- given Gordon's track record of not understanding plain-English explanations to him, his sense of righteousness unencumbered by evidence or outside opinion, and his inability to disengage unless absolutely forced to (and even then merely as a pause before trying a different tactic later on) -- always will be. Enough is enough, and encouraging him is ill-advised. You'll note that even people who are sympathetic to him still get the full-on Gordon Watts loghorrea when contradicting him, which is as disruptive a way of driving off disagreement as I can think of not involving personal threats as I can imagine.

He's been told "no", but still he persists. Enough. He's not going to magically become better, and it's time he was shown the door. --Calton | Talk 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Not a violation, actually, but really really annoying.

As noted here, in a timed display of similar thinking, I support this. For the record, I have never edited any article connected to the Terri Schiavo case and took a look at the incident because Gordon asked for help on the AN/I board. I see no indicators that this user is anything more than a single issue poster who's presence on the page is to ensure that he can engage in self-promotion, his actions are fundementally not "wikipedian" - they are to promote himself rather than build a better encyclopedia. Having said that, if editors felt this was too harsh, I would also support a limited community ban which restricts him from adding his own newspapers freely-hosted websites and editting Terri Schiavo related articles. --Fredrick day 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fredrick day. Gordon is essentially only on Wikipedia to contribute to Terri Schiavo related articles, and his main interest has been adding his own sites to the articles (which are nearly unanimously considered to not meet WP:External links). A restriction from editing Schiavo case articles should be adequate. Leebo⁸⁶ 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As noted here, where I thanked others for participating, I have long stopped editing on the Schiavo articles (or any articles for that matter), and have accepted concensus. The few occasional replies to others' posts is not unreasonable; To ban a user for responding to a post to him sounds vindictive. (If you don't like what is posted and don't want me to reply to you, then simply ignore that page and don't post on it. I am not going to start talking to myself -or, if I do, then we can deal with that when, uh, I mean IF, it happens.) To ban a user who has stopped editing on the articles in question and accepted concensus is not necessary -and sounds like revenge for taking a stand. You're move.--GordonWatts 14:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I Support a community ban. First, as a disclosure because of the political nature of his disputes, I have never edited any of the articles related to Terri Schiavo or any of the related sociological or political issues. The issues with Gordon are long term and extreme enough for a community ban. He has repeatedly attempted to inject his point of view into the articles related to Terri Schiavo, but in a back handed, voluminous, and wikilawyering way. Separate from that, he has repeatedly tried to elevate his own status and stature by extreme self promotion. He has an obsession with the issue and with the dead woman, and one could argue that there are conflict of interest issues as well.

But that is not the crux of the issues with Gordon. He does not understand our Project's policies and guidelines, interprets and bends those he does for his own benefit rather than the benefit of the project or of the community. Nor does he, I believe, have the ability to understand our community norms. I do not believe that his acts are specifically malicious - but the volume and persistence of his acts and ignorance has long ago exhausted the community's patience. And he is annoying to an extreme level.

Multiple times he has said that he is leaving or cutting back his activities, only to not cut back at all or to later return full force.

Gordon has a talent, for sure, but his talents lie in churning out thousands of words on small issues, and repeating himself ad nauseum and in ignorance of those around him. As he is fond of reminding everybody and their cousin, he has his own websites. Wikipedia is not a sounding board for his views and obsessions. Gordon can not be fixed. I know it is extreme, but he needs to go away. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"extreme self promotion...our Project's policies and guidelines..." If you will note, Jeff, this disagreement about my websites is only a minor issue, with many other links being deleted willy-nilly. I'm not the only one to share that concern: If you note in this diff, one of my opponents even admits that "I'm active on other pages, and I'm finding that blogs and personal websites are being ruthlessly removed, with the instruction to find the same information elsewhere, or leave it out." So, you are focusing on someone who had long ago accepted concensus (a waste of time) -and don't focus on the bigger picture, the actual Wikipedia project you mention above, where other editors agree that there is a problem with "personal websites are being ruthlessly removed." As long as people post nonsense to me, I have a right to reply; If you don't want me to reply here in talk, then simply don't post to me; Simple as that. You seem to want to egg on the matter -even though I have not only accepted the concensus but also abided by it; You don't see me adding ANY links, those I support -or those I oppose. As a matter of fact, besides not editing on the article pages, I may not even reply to future posts in this thread, so I may just not edit at all. Then, what are you going to? Ban someone who posts an occasional reply to a talk page? Overkill. Your move.--GordonWatts 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"So, you are focusing on someone who had long ago accepted concensus" What exactly is "long ago" in this statement? It can't have been more than a day or so, because I only stumbled across this issue in the last few days. Leebo⁸⁶ 14:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In wikipedia parlance, a few days is a long time, because of the fast pace here. That I had accepted concensus before your post -and stopped editing on the article page before your post -and stopped even posting to the talk page -except to post in reply -is the salient point -which shows me that you are asking for something after the fact. If the only problem you perceive is me replying to your posts (since I am not editing the article -or threatening to), then the solution is simple: Just don't post to me, and I can't reply! I would, if I were you, do this. I may not even post a reply to this page -be put on notice: I have a real life -but your question seemed a sincere and good one. NOW, arighty: You all are going to have to take care of wikipedia, because you all won the concensus.--GordonWatts 14:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

a long time ago? today is a long time ago? --Fredrick day 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"a long time ago?" First, I want to answer Frederick's question here, as it seems genuine and seeking the truth: When I said that I had not edited in a long time, I was specifically referring to the article pages. (You're going to have ongoing discussion on the talk pages.)

• The last time I edited the Gov't involvement in Terri Schiavo page was here at 12:51, 13 February 2007, where I revered based on this logic: (rv: #1: I did not "add" my link - I partially reverted, and that was the outcome; #2: I am not adding a news source, but rather advocacy; Address why other "blogs" are allowed and I won't revert you..).
• The last time I edited the Public opinion & activism / Terri Schiavo case pg was here back on Feb 09, where I fixed a spacing typo.
• The last time I edited the main Terri Schiavo page was here at 12:05, on 13 February 2007, because (Revert to version 107541828 (11:58, 12 February 2007) because massive deletions of many links were made without having reached proper Concensus or discussion on talk page.)

So, yes, it WAS a long time ago that I edited, a good number of days, and I never came anywhere the "3 revert" rules because I wanted to reach the end-result by consensus -not bullying. Was I wrong to refuse to bully and push here?--17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I support an article ban from subjects related to Terry Schiavo and an outright ban on linking his website, enforced if necessary by blacklisting it. Whether Gordon can be a productive editor elsewhere is unproven, let him prove himself, but there is little doubt that his edits to Schiavo articles have been disruptive and vain, and that cannot continue. he evidently has some capacity or self-delusion so I would like to clarify something: while numerous editors have been kind and patient explaining to Gordon why his actions are problematic, it would not matter where this material is hosted or who added the links, it fails WP:RS by a wide margin. The content itself is the problem, not where it is hosted or who added the links, although they are certainly the problem in terms of user conduct. This is precisely the kind of material we intended to exclude when WP:RS was written. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I support banning him from pages related to Terry Schiavo, and blacklisting the links as promotional. He seems to be wasting people's time and misusing the talk pages to such an extent that it is interfering with the project. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• The applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Being annoying is just that - annoying, but I don't think there's any malice or ill motive in his actions. He just seems very dedicated to asserting that Terri Schiavo was murdered by Democrats and euthanasia is evil. It's not even a matter of admitting when he's wrong, as he will do so, but continue to press the case in a different way, failing to learn anything. I am in a dilemma. I do not want a ban at this point for Gordon, but I worry about what else can be done. I have tried reasoning with him on more than one occasion, and it has a short-term effect at best. A warning to knockit off won't work, as he's had those before, and a ban from editing Schiavo and related articles would be pointless, as he only edits Schiavo and related articles (n.b. - nothing wrong with a narrow focus - many very fine editors only edit one or a few articles). Being annoying and writing long messages on talk pages is his sole crime. He hasn't edit warred (much) over the links, just complained volubly on the talk page about their removal. Annoying: yes, disruptive: a little, but malicious: no. If he had just edit warred, he'd have got a 24 hour block, but because he spoke up (albeit at great length, over and over) he's being community banned? I don't like that. Suggest a self-imposed break, and if Gordon doesn't learn when he returns, then we're looking at a ban. But there's been no warnings about this, and so I cannot support a ban. Proto ► 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• If all of Gordon Watts's claims on yesterday's edit which Frederick day listed above are true, then he is in violation of WP:COI. Corvus cornix 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot support a ban, per Proto. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 20:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not personally familiar with the history here, but if an editor has been around a long time and still not found a way to make himself useful, and if he's causing harm to the project (even somewhat minor harm), simple cost/benefit analysis suggests that we'd be better off without him, right? Since his goals are apparently not compatible with the goals of Wikipedia, the solution seems obvious. Let him do his soapboxing on his own website, it's not useful here. Friday (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a ban, per Proto. I've seen a lot of Gordon on Wikipedia, and while I often wish he would act differently, a lot of people who were irritated by him have behaved disgracefully towards him, and with impunity. I won't bother to search for diffs, as this is not an RfC or an RfArb, but, if people wish to verify any particular incidence, I'm sure I could look them up. This was the second message ever posted on Gordon's talk page (other than by Gordon himself). If that how we are supposed to treat newcomers? Duckecho wrote some rather nasty stuff making fun of Gordon on his own userpage, and then went to the Terri Schiavo talk page to invite editors to come along and look at it. Duckecho also, at one stage, moved all of Gordon's posts on the Terri Schiavo talk page away from where they had been posted down to the bottom of the page with an edit summary "Creating a sandbox for the kids to play in while the adults work on the article", and reverted me twice when I undid it on the grounds that attacking another editor's dignity does not help Wikipedia. On one occasion, when Gordon left a message at Calton's talk page, which Calton may well have found irritating, but which was not a personal attack, Calton deleted it with the edit summary "reverting not-very-bright troll".[1] When Gordon, at the time of his unsuccessful RfA, kept telling everyone that he had never been blocked, Carnildo blocked him for one second, entering as the reason that Gordon kept pointing to his clean block log. Even recently, when Gordon called Calton "Cal" (which I'm sure was not intended to give offence, as lots of editors use abbreviations of names) , and Calton replied with something like "Only my friends get to call me Cal, Gordy-boy." I just see example after example of people taking away the dignity of someone who gets on their nerves.

I believe that the the addition of Gordon's links would be contrary to WP:COI, WP:RS, and WP:EL, regardless of their merit. But he isn't edit warring over it; he's just posting extremely long rebuttals to everyone who disagrees with him. That's hardly something you ban someone for, expecially if you take into account that he has been treated extremely rudely by other users, and has never shown himself to be malicious. If you don't like his long replies, then don't respond. Gordon does not edit war — certainly not more than his opponents. He never vandalizes. He annoys people by telling them (in great detail) why they're wrong and he's right. In response to Friday's post about not having found a way to make himself useful, Gordon has often been very helpful to the article, correcting spelling errors, improving format, taking a photo of Terri Schiavo's grave, so as to reduce the number of Fair Use images. As Proto says, he's not malicious. I very much commend Proto for his efforts at fairness, both here, and in a recent message on Gordon's talk page. I strongly recommend to Calton that before trying things like community bans, he try to place more importance on the dignity of users with whom he disagrees. I strongly disagree with the idea that we don't have to treat other users with respect if we find them disruptive. Calton does valuable work here, and I've often noticed it, but some indication of kindness towards users who annoy him would make his work more valuable. Musical Linguist 00:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose a ban per Proto. Gordon AND Calton could both act better, nothing Gordon has done requires a Community Ban. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 00:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Duckecho wrote some rather nasty stuff making fun of Gordon on his own userpage

Wrong. Duckecho debunked Gordon's long-standing claim-- one he still maintains -- of being a major participant in the legal shenangins surrounding the Terri Schiavo case, Gordon frequently bragging about he "did better than Jeb Bush" and even trying to use that as a wedge in his most recent crusade. It's nasty in the sense that a dash of cold water is nasty.

But he isn't edit warring over it...

Yes he has, as a glance at the edit history would show, just not to the point of hitting the 3RR limit.

...he's just posting extremely long rebuttals to everyone who disagrees with him. That's hardly something you ban someone for...

it is, given its extreme disruption and its intent of wearing down anyone who disagrees with him. It's been done before: User:Herschelkrustofsky, User:Terryeo, User:Everyking, and a few others whose names I can't recall come to mind.

As Proto says, he's not malicious.

Immaterial. He's disruptive and shown himself to be incapable of learning.

when Gordon left a message at Calton's talk page, which Calton may well have found irritating, but which was not a personal attack, Calton deleted it with the edit summary "reverting not-very-bright troll".

Reaching back 16 months for "evidence" is really stretching, don't you think? And the edit summary could have been better phrased but was nonetheless accurate: Gordon WAS trolling, part of a long series of condescending messages peppering my page (some edit summaries: What's the matter, Calton: Can't stand the criticism of fellow-editors? and If you need forgiveness on this or other matters from me, I will grant it.

Funny, though, how your extensive research missed Gordon's attempt at an RFC against me at the same time as the above for "excessive reverting": he left messages on the pages of two editors with whom I'd had disgreements -- including one who'd just been banned by ArbCom, Gordon leaving his message just below the ArbCom notification [2] -- then came immediately to my Talk page claiming that he and four other editors (note the difference in numbers) had gotten together to file an RFC. [3] Note that he hadn't even bothered waiting for any replies before making his claim that "two definitely are" here. The false sincerity of the message text (Please note that I don't act in revenge, but in prevention, the best medicine, an ounce of which is worth a pound of cure -and I'm courteous and polite to give you a heads up, because you deserve a chance to run while you have a chance. I would expect no less from my own honorable adversaries) was particularly choice. Unctuous smarm is no better than active hostility.

Gordon has often been very helpful to the article, correcting spelling errors, improving format, taking a photo of Terri Schiavo's grave, so as to reduce the number of Fair Use images

Gordon is not uniquely or even especially valuable in that context -- a machine can correct spelling errors -- and given his extreme ownership issues surrounding the Terri Schiavo articles, a net drag, given that he requires constant supervision -- which he contests at every turn, sucking up time and energy.

Whether he's a nice guy or an evil, mustache-twirling villian is completely irrelevant as to the issue of whether he's disruptive: "sincere" disruption is no different from "malicious" disruption, no matter how many excuses you make for it. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of the above from User:Calton is particularly helpful or necessary to this discussion. Most of the comments made by "Duckecho" would be considered hearsay and unless said by "Duckecho" here, should be striken from the record. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 01:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a court of law, Mr. Dershowitz. --Calton | Talk 07:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No it's not, but you sure as hell are acting like it is. A court that is run by Calton and Calton alone where Calton should get what he wants, when he wants, and be damned the rules and people he has to run over to get it in the process. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Concur in part, and dissent in part, from Musical Linguist above: I agree that ferocity of Calton's attacks on Gordon Watts are excessive and very snarky for an experienced editor who wants to claim victim status. The two of them seem to have inexhaustible time to go and back and forth since Calton commenced this Wikiwar on 9 February, 2007. Nevertheless, Gordon Watts, the activist, is part of the story of the government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, unless one wishes to fully revise history. Without much effort I found these by narrowing a Google search to .gov [4] and [5] and there is likely more in .com and .org, subtracting out his personal web site. Those petitions have already been memorialized in this Schiavo resource site [6] and should be referenced in our article as well. What Gordon Watts, the Wikipedia editor, appears to lack is the ability to kowtow to Calton as well as some HTML skills. No ban is called for. I agree with all of the others who are calling for a little more self-restraint by the warriors. patsw 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Gordon Watts, the activist, is part of the story of the government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, unless one wishes to fully revise history. Utterly irrelevant spin, but not even wrong: readers are invited to peruse Duckecho's exxhaustive debunking of Gordon's long-standing claim. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouting is not necessary and let Duckecho know that he can come here and comment on this discussion. Please, though, let's keep this discussion on track. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No one is shouting, Duckecho isn't here but the debunking is easily read by anyone, the discussion IS on track, and you should stop with the wikistalking, already. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not Wikistalking, just defending a friend. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 02:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reality varies: you never even heard of the guy until you enlisted his help this week. --Calton | Talk 07:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, cause he was being harrassed by you. I just gave him a simple RfC link which preceded the request for this community ban. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose.Per Musical Linguist and Proto.Giovanni33 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• I Oppose a community ban. I read through Talk:Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case and I think Gordon has exhausted Calton's patience, but I don't think he has yet exhausted the community's patience. I agree that Gordon is very trying, annoying and he seems to have a very warped sense of self-importance. However, I don't see anything that I feel justifies a community ban. He has only been blocked twice: once on 19 September 2005 for one second for "pointing to his clean block log as a reason why he should be made an admin". The second block was for 12 hours on 02:16, 25 September 2005 for "violation of agreement at Talk:Terri Schiavo". In the last 17 months, Gordon has not been blocked at all. before supporting a community ban, I would rather see more blocks of increasing lengths used where necessary. A community ban should be a last resort. Gordon has a clear conflict of interest with regard to all the Schiavo articles and his links are clearly inapprorpriate, but he has agreed not to edit the Schiavo articles further.

Also, Calton needs to stop being antagonistic, provocative, bullying and rude towards Gordon. I don't know if there's some ruling (from anyone other than Calton) that says that Gordon is not allowed to comment on the relevant article's talk pages, but if there is, I couldn't find it. All I could find was Calton repeatedly declaring that "Gordon is not free to rebut" matters discussed on the article's talk page. This is bullying. Gordon has already agreed not to edit the articles, if Calton wants him also restricted from responding on the talk page, he needs to get an appropriate injunction, rather than declaring it as a personal decree. Gordon's behaviour is disruptive and annoying, but I think a community ban at the present time is premature. Sarah 07:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Gordon has already agreed not to edit the articles" Well, let me clarify: I promised that I had not edited the main article pages for a good while, several days; I was making a promise about the past, not the future; also, please see my reply to Frederick above, where I made another promise about the past (it's easier to promise about the past, since it can't be changed) -I gave my word and promised I came nowhere near the 3-revert rule. I do not recall promising to not ever edit on the Schiavo pages; In fact, many people stick to their area of expertise, and while I edit a little everywhere, I am expert in only a few issues. I did strongly imply (if not promise) to not edit for a short while to give the issue time to cool off- and I also strongly implied (if not promised) to try accept consensus and not irritate or edit war with my global neighbours -and to be more flexible. Indeed, I may be guilty to being too talkative, and we all get ticked at times, but if I am guilty of spending lots of talk page space over something (hopefully to educate and seek consensus), then Calton is also guilty of the same thing: He posts long, irritating posts. Indeed, even as we speak, as pointed out by OrangeMonster, Calton has an RfC against him: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Calton -and lots of people agree Calton has need for improvement. Not only is his behaviour bad, but also, his editing style is bad; He cuts too many things out of Wikipedia, so we can't cite our sources, and this will be a problem whether or not I regularly edit here. I already cited that even one editor, who disagreed with me on my page being used as a reference, concedes that I'm active on other pages, and I'm finding that blogs and personal websites are being ruthlessly removed, with the instruction to find the same information elsewhere, or leave it out. OK, while no one seems to agree that my newspaper should be a references, I'll AGREE with you that it may not be totally reliable (and by extension, so also, some smaller papers and blogs). BUT, these smaller news sources ARE partly reliable -hey! We don't all just write lies all the time, but that's what is implied by "not reliable." I'll offer a compromise here: Why don't we consider revising our application of the policy to allow for these smaller papers to be included -so long as they have supporting sources, that is, instead of citing just to, say, my paper, we can cite to 2 or 3 smaller blogs; In fact, even when using the NY Times as a source, we ought to have a "supporting" source, just to make sure we cite our sources.--GordonWatts 17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, you're not helping yourself at all. Making promises about the past is ridiculous. You have a conflict of interest and should not be editing any of those pages. Your links are completely unacceptable for the articles. You either need to accept these things or you're going to have to accept a community ban. Sarah 17:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have accepted the consensus and not threatened to violate it; however, what if this editor is right in her claims that we are not citing our sources? Also, I am not advocating specifically for "my" pages. That my pages are one of many that are arbitrarily excluded no less makes my point a valid one; So, please understand that I am NOT seeking to promote my websites, but if smaller news papers ARE indeed partly reliable but arbitrarily excluded, then I am right to speak up on that general issue, and those would bring up "my" newspapers are conflating (confusing) the point and side-stepping the issue. Indeed, if all I'm guilty of is advocating a change in policy (note that I've accepted the consensus on the issue of links to my page), then this is not a crime; it is something all should do: Advocate for change where change is necessary. You are confusing my advocacy of my links with my advocacy of the bigger issues of our policy. I am doing the latter, not the former--GordonWatts 18:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Gordon may have misunderstood something I said. He links to this post, and asks if I may be right in my claims that we are not citing our sources. I certainly never intended to make such a claim. I said, "I'm active on other pages, and I'm finding that blogs and personal websites are being ruthlessly removed, with the instruction to find the same information elsewhere, or leave it out. After you recover from your surprise, it actually seems a good idea." I was referring to the Gillian McKeith article, where a lot of criticism of McKeith was placed in the article, with references that linked to a blog. Some administrators have explained that we can't use that material, unless the criticism is found in a better source. The idea was not that we'd use it, and not cite our sources (which is what Gordon seems to think I meant), but that we shouldn't use it at all, unless it's in a reliable source. If the information is notable and newsworthy, it will presumably be found in The Times, or a similar source. I was actually saying to Gordon that the policy seems very strict, but that once you get used to it, it makes sense. ElinorD (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your intent; It was not my intent to mischaracterize or misquote you; If what you say is true (and I'm sure it is), then the situation is even worse then my initial estimation: Even if we don't cite our sources but at least leave in the material, we can come back to it; By deleting sections of encyclopaedic entries for which only "non-notable" sources exist, we slice the Encyclopaedia in pieces, since, after all, we can either get several "non-notable" sources -or make a note that the sources are in question; That way we don't miss a beat -and preserve the record of history. MANY times an act or action will be witnessed or reported on only by a "non-notable" source, such as the time I was the only news reporter in one oral argument for George Felos, when he came before the court a block from my home in Lakeland. Yet that even really occurred and should be reported -as it happened -and if there are concerns about the source, then call the Schindlers; They can confirm whether or not the "non-notable" news report was true or not, and this will be your check-and-balance.--GordonWatts 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if I am right that our policy needs to be changed, then my advocacy of this is NOT a conflict of interest issue: I am not specifically advocating in this issue for inclusion of my links; That I did the latter in the past does not somehow negate this larger issue. I certainly don't seek a ban against Calton in his RfC, but he has violated actual and real rules, and is guilty of not only rudeness but also (if I am right about how we don't cite our sources) he would be guilty of cutting up articles and bad editing, even if he were polite. Even though I've commented that his behaviour is inappropriate and needs to be dealt with, I'm not seeking his ban, but if you seek a ban, he would be more worthy of one than would I. Did you see his RfC? One more thing: Saying that a person can't edit on a page where he has expert or first-hand knowledge because of a conflict of interest would effectively stop all doctors from editing medical articles and stop all biologists from editing biology articles, and we'd lost a lot of our expertise; Is that what you want?--GordonWatts 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, if you wish to discuss the validity of using certain links or lobby for policy change, you need to do that in the appropriate forum. Advocating for it and offering it as compromise in the middle of discussion of a proposal to ban you is not the right place.

Correct. I got side-tracked -and slightly over-reacted; Sorry! I shall correct that - via strikeout.--GordonWatts 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You editing the Terri Schiavo articles is a completely different situation to, say, a doctor editing the heart article and I'm actually quite surprised that you don't get that. I know you self-proclaim yourself a Terri Schiavo expert and you've tried to claim "special standing" and "recognized authority" status on those articles.[7] I do not accept that claim and I don't believe the majority of editors would either. I don't know if you are an expert or even how that would measured and quantified, and I don't think it even matters. But what I do know is you have a clear conflict of interest and you should not be editing these articles. I think if you could put your belief about your status and significance in the case aside when you're on this website, and follow WP:COI and WP:RS, many of your problems would be resolved. I don't have a problem with you suggesting changes on the talk pages or discussing article content there, but you should not directly edit these articles or add links to your site to any article. Sarah 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of the adverb "repeatedly" is false or at least wildly misleading and the context misrepresented: this was in response to his continuing to flog the dead horse of inserting his personal external links after continually being told that they weren't going in, period. I told him that if he continued, I'd request the ban. He continued, I requested.

if Calton wants him also restricted from responding on the talk page, he needs to get an appropriate injunction You're looking at that request: what else did you think this whole thread was about? Instead, we get people (who frankly ought to know better) enabling his dysfunctional behavior and feeding his overweening sense of self-worth instead, and at least annoying wikistalker hopping on the bandwagon hoping to recruit supporters.

My user page says at the top "It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical." Gordon is all three, in spades, and whatever limited value he has -- other than a single-minded devotion to one subject (or, more precisely, one single view of a single subject) -- is far outweighed by his negatives. This place is not reform school or personal therapy, it's an encyclopedia, and I can't imagine what possible benefit there is in attempting a salvage job on someone who refuses to be salvaged. Between his previous and current antics at Terri Schiavo, at attempting to bully his way into making it a feature article, and his world-class wikilawyering at his spectacularly unsuccessful adminship bid (including an attempt at an end run by appealing to Jimbo to just give him the job, votes be damned), I'm trying to imagine HOW anyone thinks he's going to suddenly turn into a good contributor. --Calton | Talk 07:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of the adverb "repeatedly" is false or at least wildly misleading and the context misrepresented. I looked quickly at Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Enough and I see at least three times you insisted that Gordon was not free to rebut:

• "No more arguments, no more rationalizations, no more long-winded, disruptive, self-serving rebuttals..." --Calton | Talk 14:49, 15 February 2007
• "Gordon's free to rebut. No, he's not..." .-Calton | Talk 22:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• "Gordon is free to rebut. No, he isn't: hundreds and thousands of words of his self-serving nonsense..." -Calton | Talk 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

While the first one was just your opening warning to Gordon that you would request a community ban if he continued with that behaviour, the other two were replies to User:Leebo86 and User:Hipocrite who disagreed with your edict. At least three is more than once and therefore "repeated". I don't think that is false or "wildly misleading."

You're looking at that request: what else did you think this whole thread was about? That's exactly my point, Calton: you declared editing restrictions before you even brought it to the community.

Instead, we get people (who frankly ought to know better) enabling his dysfunctional behavior and feeding his overweening sense of self-worth instead, and at least annoying wikistalker hopping on the bandwagon hoping to recruit supporters. I don't know who the stalker is or whether that is a general comment or if it's directed specifically at me, but what you've actually got is several people responding to your request and telling you that they don't think a community ban is appropriate yet. I'd be willing to support a community ban if other editors cut antagonising him AND there was a recent record of blocks. Is his behaviour disruptive enough to warrant a block? If it is, have him blocked a few times and see if that has any impact. If it isn't disruptive enough to warrant a block, how on earth can it warrant a ban? I don't think this is unreasonable, nor do I think that telling you your attitude and behaviour is unhelpful and Gordon that his attitude and behaviour is "very trying, annoying..." and "disruptive" and warning him that he is headed for a community ban is "enabling his dysfunctional behavior and feeding his overweening sense of self-worth." Also, I thought you posting on Talk:Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case the link to that blog that ridiculed Gordon was pretty damn nasty. Sarah 12:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Sarah has supported me and seems to be taking a responsible attitude towards being fair, it has bothered me that there was a small difference of opinion -in which she commented that I should not edit the Terri Schiavo articles. Yes, I agree that I have some conflict of interest here, but it has just now dawned on me: I think she may feel my motives on this article were less than pure. (And if she doubts my motives, I'm sure that my detractors would doubt them even more.) So, I feel a obligation to clarify one big thing: In the many edits I've made, I DO have a hidden agenda: To better Wikipedia -and to have fun and make friends in the process; Proof of that claim is the fact that I often make sure opposing views and opposing links (that is, views with which I disagree) are presented. I even recently added Michael Schiavo's website to the main Terri Schiavo article, even though I was against him in my recent court case! To prove that my detractors are wrong, please note that here at 04:41am, way back on 18 January 2007, I added a link to Michael Schiavo's site to the main article. I don't want to argue much for myself, even as 10 of Trades suggested, but this one link is proof I'm not biased or in possession of a bad agenda. However, if MY website is helpful as a source (in one case, I was the only reporter present in an important oral argument hearing), then my pushing of my website is not per se pushing my own agenda: Most websites I support for inclusion are NOT my own -even those which are not pro-life like me. OK, now that I've got this off my chest, I apologise for the length of this page, but so many questions and accusations require some rebuttals hither and yon.--GordonWatts 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is ONE take home message I hope none of us miss: We are unpaid editors, and while it is good that we expect a lot out of the articles, when unpaid persons are asked to sit in judgment of a peer, the quality of the inquest suffers, and instead of getting frustrated or blaming yourselves, please understand that you can't be expected to be a professional judge when you're not paid enough to do the job right. So, in conclusion, we must STRIVE for the stars -but we MUST NOT expect too much -lest we be disappointed; Be humble in your expectations, and you won't get disappointed; I hope this has encouraged my fellow-editors, for that was the hope.--GordonWatts 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Sarah has supported me... Gordon, I just need to clarify something: I think your behaviour is extremely problematic and I think that if you continue as you have in the past, you are heading for a community ban. There is a difference between thinking that you haven't entirely "exhausted the community's patience" yet and actually supporting you. I don't think you should be banned at the present time because I think we should exhaust other options such as blocking, restrictions etc, but I do not support you carrying on as you have been. Sarah 12:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban request on User:GordonWatts (section break 1)

Why are people talking about how other editors have been rude to him? It looks like it's true, certainly, but it's utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. The big concern I see here is the conflict of interest. Any editor who's goals do not coincide with the goals of the project must either change their ways, or be shown the door. However it looks to me like an rfc might be a better place to hash this out- it seems we've no shortage of people with opinions on this topic. Friday (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The behaviour of all the parties to a conflict is often relevant when we seek to evaluate the behaviour of a particular editor. Context is important. Some editors – I have in mind particularly Calton, and this is by no means the only conflict where his own attitude is a problem – check the requirements of WP:CIVIL at the door as soon as they believe they're dealing with someone who is a waste of their time. While that assessment may in some cases be correct, the rudeness often fans flames and spreads conflict. Gratuitous rudeness doesn't help Wikipedia, except for the very rare case where a timewasting editor can be bullied into silence and departure. (Even then, this is often not the best possible outcome.)

That said, GordonWatts has been a single-issue editor since his arrival here. His continued debating here and elsewhere does seem to indicate that he has trouble with letting go of arguments. I can understand the frustration with trying to deal with an editor who is certain that we'll all come around to his point of view if he just explains it one more time.

GordonWatts' RfA a year ago was not a pretty thing, and I fear that he has not sufficiently internalized Wikipedia's practices and culture since then. Nevertheless, an RfC might be a good idea to identify the scope and nature of the problems here. I note that his block log has been clean for more than a year, although he did take a couple of very long breaks during that time. If the problems are simply related to his conflict of interest in evaluating his own blog as a reliable source, I can't in good conscience support a flat ban. As Proto says above, it appears "Being annoying and writing long messages on talk pages is his sole crime. He hasn't edit warred (much) over the links, just complained volubly on the talk page about their removal." Incidentally, aside from the links issue, does anyone have a comment on the quality of his writing? Is he improving the articles that he works on? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the evaluation; it may be the most correct yet. I'll answer your last question about my edits: I don't edit very often, sometimes taking long Wikipedia:Wikibreaks, but when I do edit (over the long run), the edit history of the articles I sometimes edit show usually very GOOD edits, both in regards to finding typos AND in regards to making sustentative changes. However, your opinion may differ. What I will tell you is this: When I make edits, I usually DON'T get his type of negative attention, which would imply that I am a good editor, that is, mixing common sense editing and good manners. (Either one or the other won't work: You can't be a stupid but polite editor. You also can't be a good but rude editor and do well. Check the edit history of the few pages I've edited recently -or check MY edit history -if you want to see.--GordonWatts 19:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Of what I have read, and I will be the first to admit that I am no expert on the Schiavo subject only what I seen on CNN. But, of what I have read of Gordon's writing, his writing appears to be VERY well written and explains things at detail. Much better than anything I can write. My personal opinion is that is does improve the articles that he works on. Writing as articulate as Gordon's is something I would like to see more of here. Again, this is just my opinion on the quality of his writing per TenOfAllTrades (I ain't getting in the debate outside that). - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 19:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll add a few diffs to supstantiate Orange Monster's claim here -and help him out:

First, look at the last 500 edits of the Terri Schiavo page here, by far, more contentious and difficult than the Gov't Involvement page. Most of my edits seem to be accepted by the community. I rest my case -and await an answer to my question to Sarah where she says as person can't edit at all on pages where conflict of interest would apply. The Conflict of interest only applies to edits which promote the person -not just any old edit.--GordonWatts 19:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding Nancy Cruzan link a sustentitive edit; revert a typo wikilinking some dates we missed earlier (minor grammar/clarification edits: add ... + date + wikilink of date + time span of institutionalization + clarify *which* court was petitioned by Michael + grammar of "upholding" lower court decision) m (→State involvement: Terri's Law - balance: I concur and agree with Calton that ACLJ is explicitly conservative, but as a nod to Johnlu 78759, I add this to remove bias by an inclusionist method.) PS: That edit was later reverted, and I didn't edit-war over it, but my edit here looked good, so I did it.--GordonWatts 19:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, I'm really looking for third party evaluation of the quality of your edits. This thread exemplifies part of what other people have found – for lack of a better word – 'annoying' about your participation on talk pages. You really, really, really need to learn when it's best to stand aside, and that it isn't necessary to have your finger in every pie or your signature on the last word of every discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that I should not have HAD to reply to your question AT ALL, because the other editors should be able to look into the edit history all by themselves -but we both know that not all people can find the article edits you sought -since not all would look in the right places. That said, I've done my part; If you all want answers to these matters, you will have to seek them out; Other than answer a passing question, I have no more to add: This is a big waste of time to argue over this matter -for all parties. I have a real life, and so do you all: Don't let these things stress you all too much! Live life and have fun.--GordonWatts 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; A 3rd-party evaluation is more objective, but I think it's only fair to help out a little bit. One last comment: While this page is long, and partly due to my crimes of being too talkative, much of the long-windedness is that of other people. I hope we all can learn to argue less over trivial points; Life is too short, and THAT is the bigger picture -no matter my or others' situation.--GordonWatts 19:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, you're not taking the hint. Let someone else get a word in edgewise in this discussion. You're not helping yourself or anyone else. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK; as you ask. Acknowledged and done.--GordonWatts 19:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously a problematic situation. I don't think a permanent community ban is right, but I would support a one-year ban from articles and talk pages relating to Terri Schiavo. One year seems like a good amount of time to me, because Gordon takes long breaks but then returns with problematic behavior, but never THAT much time, and I'm with Sarah that I don't think the community's patience is totally exhausted by now. I would make the ban extend to talk pages because that is where his behavior has been a problem for other people. Mangojuice^talk 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

GordonWatts is pretty much a single-issue editor, though. If we bar him from editing on Schiavo-related topics, there's not going to be anything left of his contributions—what you suggest amounts to the same thing as banning him outright for a year. If that's on the table and we want to discuss it, that's fine—but we shouldn't kid ourselves with 'oh, it's just an article ban'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article-ban pretty much encompasses all of Gordon's activity. However, it's not the same thing as banning him outright, because this does give him the opportunity to attempt to make himself useful somewhere in the project. If he doesn't feel like taking that opportunity, no big deal. But if he is going to reform, he must stop being a single-issue editor, and this would encourage that. Mangojuice^talk 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would support an article-ban, as MangoJuice above said, it would allow Gordon to edit/add to other articles and not completely outright ban him, which I don't think is necessary. I think Gordon would do much good here on other articles. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the quickest way to make this wikidrama go away is to blacklist his freehosted pages? Then either he's get on with editting or if he's entirely special purpose (in regards to get his own pages added) then he will be unable to fulfil that purpose and leave? The proof will be in the pudding, no? --Fredrick day 17:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That solves – rather finally – the issue of the external links, but the impressive I've gotten from the lengthy discussion above is that there wasn't really much edit warring over them to begin with. The chief problem was the interminable argument on that and other topics which followed. (Another clear example of that problem appears in the section above, where Gordon misses completely repeated hints that it isn't necessary to be the last poster in every discussion thread.) I fear that if we blacklist the links, we'll just be back to argument (here, on WP:AN, and on various talk pages) about why the links need to be unblacklisted again.

What we need is cloture: some way to throttle Gordon's back-and-forth. I'm not sure what the best remedy would be, but I'd be willing to support something like an editing cap. Allow two or three edits per talk page per day, totalling no more than six hundred words. (I'm pulling numbers out of thin air here.) Maybe offer an exemption where he is specifically asked to comment. If nothing else, it will (hopefully) force him to pick his battles and reduce the amount of text that other editors have to wade through. Incidentally, I'm still interested in comment on the thread above—I really do want to know what others think of the quality of Gordon's writing. Thoughts? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What is happening below here indicates to me, at least, that we're going to need some sort of, as Ten says, throttle. At this point, I'm now willing to support some kind of editing restrictions. His need to respond to everything and argue every little point is obviously not conducive to collaborative editing. I won't support a community ban, but I'm willing to support editing restrictions. Sarah 15:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this thread is a misplaced effort at a user conduct RFC. GordonWatts does not fit the end phase profile described at the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing model for community response to disruption. As Sarah Ewart articulates, he is headed along that path and may get to the point of community banning. Some other editors have raised the question of whether lesser community sanctions could be appropriate such as revert parole or topic banning. Those are interesting ideas. I would want to see a more serious block history than one single second block and one twelve hour block (both several months ago) before I get behind any community action proposal. Durova^Charge! 00:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

GORDON'S OBSERVATION:

Can I make an observation? As you can see in Kate's Replacement and Essjay's Tool, I have * 4194 TOTAL EDITS, with only 1268 of them in talk -in approximately 569 to 575 main space webpages (depending on which edit counter you use), -and only 187 talk pages (apparently, I edit more and talk less -as long as no one pokes fun or harasses me!) ...and in ALL that time -and in all those edits on all those pages (many, many pages besides Terri Schiavo pages, mind you -I'm not as "single-purposed as some claim -not that this is bad), I have NEVER gotten any serious discipline for anything -so, obviously, I am a good editor -period!

Thus, it pain me that editors who

1. 1: Don't know me
2. 2: Never met me -and
3. 3: Don't know anything about me (except that I briefly reverted Calton, with the unintended result being that it add my link back in -not the same thing as adding it myself, mind you)

• • All these editors who DON'T know me (that don't know that 99.5% or more of my edits have NOTHING to do with my own webpages) all of a sudden think they know everythnig about me -and can make sweeping generalizations.

Note, if you would, that people who actually know me with almost no exception, have positive views about me.

So, if MOST of my edits have had NOTHING to do with adding my own links or pages -and since I -by and large -don't have problems (even though I have edited a lot -long breaks not diminishing the THOUSANDS of edits on HUNDREDS of pages), then, obviously I am not a "self-serving" editor. You can impose any or all bans, but if you do, you will set bad precedent: Namely, you will exemplify the nature of a wiki: People rashly jumping to rash conclusions with little or no data.

Unpaid editors -like ourselves CAN NOT be expected to gather facts as professionally as, say, paid appeals judges, OK? I'm not blaming some editors for being unpaid, but I AM blaming them for thinking they can do an equal job as a paid judge.

Since the dispute in question was winding down, and I had accepted the consensus about the links in question, and was moving on, this matter was basically over -and things were running smoothly -like they usually do with me. But, Calton, an editor with a history of trouble (see his current RfC for evidence of that) decided to sling mud, and if he slings mud, I will respond to the allegations.

So, a bad editor slung mud at a good editor, and other editors who don't know my generally good track record improperly followed him, and now we have pages and pages of words -now, whose fault is this? ANY ONE OF YOU, had you been improperly accused of being a trouble maker would have responded as me.

Yes, I've made a few errors in judgment, but we move on; This spectacle here is overkill, a waste of everybody's time, and proof that an editor with many, many good edits can be improperly accused -due to the fact that unpaid editors sitting in judgment can overlook many, many facts and look narrowly at a small, small selection of edits and just jump like frogs to a conclusion. Is this how we want to act?

If you blame me for something, you must blame my accuser, Calton, even more, since his track record is one of trouble: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Calton. I'm not asking for any punishment of Calton -at all -only pointing out his track record is far spottier than mine. Remember: I sought to talk out the problem -and avoid an edit war -not even getting close to the 3-revert rule; I am polite and patient.--GordonWatts 05:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

CONCLUSION: Based on the foregoing, any decision to prohibit edits on one type of page or the other would be like prohibiting a doctor for doing medical -or prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law. (Earlier, Sarah rejected this comparison and suggested I had a COI re Schiavo pages. No; I have a bias -I am pro-life. MANY editors are either pro-life or pro-choice, and have a bias, but that doesn't stop them from editing; The only time I would have a COI on the Terri pages would be if I edited about MYSELF (like if I were one of the members of the family in the article -or if I put in one of my links or something). No COI here -merely the mundane, everyday "bias" we ALL have.) I admit that I edit more on the Schiavo pages than other pages (I AM NOT a single-issue editor though, and proof of that is the fact that I have edited on HUNDREDS of articles) -but there is nothing wrong with single-issue specialists. I mean, really, do you want to go to a doctor when he is not a specialist, but is forced to practice law, play golf, and repair computers? No! Specialists are not bad! I think that prohibiting my pages from being linked will settle the argument; If I am bad, I will go away; If I am good, I will be forced to work within the constraints of using "non-Gordon" pages -it will find me out: "The proof will be in the pudding, no?" this editor says, and I agree with him.--GordonWatts 05:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, it's this kind of stuff that everyone is talking about. You just dropped a whole page of text that reiterates everything you've been saying already, and is so longwinded that no one can properly respond to every point you bring up. Didn't you say you were going to sit by and observe for a while? Leebo⁸⁶ 05:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Didn't you say you were going to sit by and observe for a while?" I sat by for like a day -and will probably sit by and wait for a good day or two after this edit before even thinking about responding. "a whole page of text that reiterates..." Not re-iterated at all: I brought up a novel (new) point: The fact that I have edited for MANY THOUSANDS of edits on many HUNDREDS of pages -usually without incident; This specific fact was not mentioned prior -and needed highlighting. Also not mentioned before was the fact that the original dispute was winding down until a bad editor slung mud had not been pointed out either. PLUS, I mentioned other facts which were not elucidated (not "iterated" before, thus could not be "re-iterated" at all by me!) -such as the distinction between COI and bias -a significant distinction -and the distinction between myself and Calton's records -and a support of a proposed solution suggested by Frederick -and proof I am not a single issue editor -and proof that even if I were, it is not all bad. ALL these points (with the possible exception of the last) were novel, and the last point needed clarification. "You just dropped a whole page" Dude! It's only one page; Chill out, and relax; It will all be ok... I have nothing more to add -except please read what I already wrote -before responding, OK? It's only 1-page. I have no further comment -unless someone has a question or complaint.--GordonWatts 06:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban, but Support a temporary ban on Schiavo-related articles. It's possible that he'd be less disruptive if he edited on a different subject, and I don't think it'd cost us anything to find out. He plainly shouldn't be editing Schiavo pages, though, since he considers himself (rightly or wrongly) to be part of the situation, and the changes he wants to insert aren't the non-controversial sort permitted under WP:AUTO. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Some numbers

The fact that I have edited for MANY THOUSANDS of edits on many HUNDREDS of pages -usually without incident

The statistics are technically true but -- as usual with Gordon -- misleading. Welcome to the mind of Gordon Watts. You were warned.

So let's break down those numbers, using the "Wannabe-Kate's Tool" [8]

Total edits: 4210: Avg edits per article: 12.38

• Mainspace edits: 575 (13.7% of all edits)

• Terri Schiavo: 418
• Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case: 21
• Other Terri Schiavo-related pages: 45

• Total Terri Schiavo related edits: 484 (84.2% of category)

• Talk Page edits: 1266 (30.1% of all edits)

• Talk:Terri Schiavo: 830
• Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation: 150
• Talk:Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case: 141
• Other Terri Schiavo-related Talk pages: 24

• Total Terri Schiavo-related Talk page edits: 1145 (90.4% of category)

• Wikipedia space: 562 (13.3% of all edits)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive1: 107
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive2: 61
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive3: 57
• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates: 57

• Total Terri Schiavo-FAC page edits: 282 (50.2% of category)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts: 78
• Wikipedia Talk:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts: 29

• Total Adminship request edits: 107 (19.0% of category)

• User talk page edits: 1412 (33.5% of all edits)
• User page edits: 134 (3.2% of all edits)

• And the money shot: Everything else (other articles, Category, Template, Image, etc): 472 (11.2% of all edits)

If anyone can explain how and when the magic transformation of Gordon Watts will take place -- so far, no evidence, especially on this page -- I'd be grateful. --Calton | Talk 06:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You are guilty of that which your friends are accusing me (being too talkative). I'm not seeking any punishment for this. (You have a right to talk) -but if I am talkative, you are very long-winded and non-stop (plus you have RfC problems that I don't have). In all areas of trouble, you excel me. Maybe we should have a Request for Ban page for you instead? Just a thought. OK, all I seek is a review of the facts -thank you for your input here; Very interesting.--GordonWatts 06:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton, are you trying to say that just because that is the only section on Wiki Gordon has edited/added to that he wouldn't be helpful in other sections? Gordon has not edited or added to a Terri Schiavo related page since February 16th, the day you submitted the community ban request. It has been suggested that a year-long ban from any Terri Schiavo related page be imposed, I would like to hear your opinion on that.

I think, given the chance, Gordon would be helpful on other sections of Wiki, regardless of your numbers. If we went by your numbers logic, I wouldn't be useful to Wiki if banned from radio and TV pages (the majority of my edit/adds). So, again, exactly what are you trying to say with these numbers?

Also, I would like a vote taken on the "one-year ban from articles and talk pages relating to Terri Schiavo" proposed by User:Mangojuice and User:GordonWatts a chance to prove himself elsewhere on Wikipedia to show that he is not just a one-subject editor. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 07:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Also, I would like a vote taken on the..." I'm not saying you are wrong here, but please note, SVRTVDude, that -at the top of the page -we see this quote regarding policy on voting: "While comments from all editors are welcome, please note that "voting" won't be taking place, including on proposed community bans. Ejecting an editor from the community does not rest solely on simple majorities, or even supermajorities." "a chance to prove himself elsewhere on Wikipedia" PS: Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't feel I need to prove myself any more; After thousands of edits, I've already proven myself -and I'm all worn out, and I need to just limp by at my own slow pace for editing, OK? I'm an old dude at 40 years of age!--GordonWatts 07:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the no voting taking place line...thanks:) I am guilty of skimming through things I read sometimes, this is one of those cases. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 07:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. No harm done. OK, I'm an old fogey, and I don't much like all this editing; it's a wearing me out; Y'all figure this out. If the need arises, I might answer a stray question, but I hope not to. If anyone wants to make a suggestion, all I say is that personal responsibility lies with you to read the page (not that long, really) -and if you don't like the page, simply walk away and take care of more pressing issues. Have a nice day.--GordonWatts 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon: PLEASE STOP. Stop commenting and replying to eveything. Seriously, you are only damaging your own case by replying to and arguing every point. Sarah 14:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What? There is nothing wrong with replying to comments here. If people are allowed to make complaints about Gordon's behaviour in a public place in this way then he should be allowed to defend himself. Banning people from responding to accusations made against them is just unfair. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 02:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are guilty of that which your friends are accusing me (being too talkative). False, but you just keep thinking there, Butch, it's what you're good at.

Calton, are you trying to say that just because that is the only section on Wiki Gordon has edited/added to that he wouldn't be helpful in other sections? Yep. Multiple chances, multiple requests, multiple suggestions, same M.O. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Butch, it's what you're good at."....I think we all know what you were trying to say in that first word and that's not even close to appropriate. Cussing (or "faux" cussing like above) is not necessary. Thank you. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 16:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You would be, as usual, wrong, especially your use of "we": [9]. --Calton | Talk 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would support a ban next time around, or even a temporary ban this time. I've had some experience dealing with Gordon Watts, and all of it has been extremely frustrating. In addition, I have yet to see a case where he has been easy to work with. As evidenced plenty on this page, he is difficult to discuss matters with, is illogical, and just seems to miss the point — it doesn't appear that he understands the problem. Although he seems very well intentioned, the amount of frustration created through dealing with Gordon seems to outweigh his contributions and good intentions. It seems to me that every effort to remedy the problem has been made. While I don't really want to ban him, something's got to give. Thus, I feel that maybe a ban is certainly coming if he keeps it up. Honestly, though, given his reactions on this page, I doubt that anything will change. I'm willing to give it a last shot, though. Kyle Barbour 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban request on User:GordonWatts (section break 2)

This section with subsections is getting so long, that I'm not going to attempt to reply in the correct places. The dispute seems to have started with this uncivil edit summary from Calton. The material Calton was removing was in the article when I joined Wikipedia in April 2005 (before Gordon). The actual link (to a site that Calton objected to, but not Gordon's personal website) was added by Zenger, not by Gordon,[10] although Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger.[11]

Anyway, the link was added on 3 January. A month later, an anon (very likely banned user Amorrow) made massive changes to the article. Gordon reverted the changes on the grounds that they had not been discussed. Reverting the changes meant reinserting the link. Note that he did not sneakily add in a link while reverting unrelated changes: the version that he reverted to, from before the massive anon changes, had that link. Nevertheless, Calton removed the link (quite appropriately) with the extremely inappropriate and inaccurate edit summary "Remove Gordon's umpteenth attempt to sneak in the same unreliable source under cover of a series of edits."[12] Gordon seems to have been hurt and indignant. (Any chance, Calton, that you could try not to hurt other editors that you disagree with, or does that not matter?) Calton then posted several aggressive messages on Gordon's talk page, rejecting Gordon's protest that he had not added the link, he had merely reverted some massive changes from an anon. See here, where he aggressively accuses Gordon of "dishonesty" and of attempting "to sneak in" the link, here, where he says "And the name is "Calton": only my friends get to call me "Cal", Gordy-boy", here, where he says, "You did it. Don't lie. . . don't waste my time and insult my intelligence by cranking out long-winded excuses", here, where he says (of Orangemonster2k1) ":Hmm, a soul mate for you, Gordon, someone as equally clueless about Wikipedia policy", and here, where he says "Plugging your ears and saying "MAMAMAMAMAMAI'MNOTLISTENINGMAMAMAMA" doesn't change that."

It was after that rather nasty and abusive behaviour that Calton removed links to Gordon's personal sites from one of the Terri Schiavo sub-articles. Being familiar with Wikipedia policy about sources and links, I cannot fault him for removing them, but after his nasty abuse, it is hardly surprising that Gordon took it personally. Gordon then argued vociferously on the talk page, but did not make any huge efforts to keep reverting, and then Calton came here looking for a community ban on him.

Regarding Calton's claim that pushing back sixteen months for evidence is stretching it, I will say that I have personally had almost zero interaction with Calton, and the "reverting not-very-bright troll" edit summary was almost the first time I noticed him — and it really shocked me. Since Gordon was on a wikibreak that lasted for over a year, I can hardly give lots of examples from November 2006. I also think such evidence is important because Calton maintains that there's no obligation to treat Gordon with respect because of the way he has behaved since he arrived, and I maintain that Gordon was treated rudely from the very start.

I disagree with Friday's opinion that the abuse of other editors towards Gordon is irrelevant. The Terri Schiavo talk page was an extremely toxic, venomous place in the summer of 2005. The worst offender was eventually banned by an ArbCom ruling, but I watched for four months before an administrator took action. Administrators should do something about users being aggressive and abusive, rather than recommend bans for people who get upset by the abuse and become disruptive. Gordon is not abusive and aggressive the way Calton is; he just has enormous difficulties letting go, moving on gracefully, letting someone else have the last word. He hasn't been posting at the Terri Schiavo talk pages recently; he's just arguing with everyone here. I wish he wouldn't, and I agree he's not helping himself, but quite frankly, Calton's behaviour in the last few hours has been rather similar (though aggressive, where Gordon is not), being determined to have the last word, continuing to post on the talk page of someone whom he should leave alone, responding at this noticeboard to a comment that the user had crossed out, going to various talk pages where that user had posted, to leave an angry comment, instead of letting go, and moving on.

To answer TenOfAllTrades, yes Gordon has done some useful editing to the encyclopaedia. Only a very small amount of his article editing is in any way connected with promoting his own links. He has done some good work with correction of typos, fixing format, taking a photo and uploading it with a free licence, to replace a fair use image, sometimes finding and adding valuable information. In general, he doesn't have a record of edit warring. His problem has always been that he kept telling people on the talk page that he had done better than the governor, and had come closer to saving Terri, or that he would give long posts with bible verses, or that he'd write in lots of different colours, as if he wanted to impress his personality on the page. None of that is malicious. None of it is "disruptive" to the extent that FuelWagon (who was banned by the ArbCom) was disruptive on that page, calling other editors (particularly Gordon) assholes, and telling them to fuck off.

With regard to Gordon's block log, one block was a completely inappropriate, abusive block (by an admin who was subsequently desysopped by Jimbo for other abusive blocks) of one second, for constantly telling people that he had never been blocked. The other was not for any violation of policy. As far as I remember, the editors at the Terri Schiavo talk page (including myself) made a voluntary agreement to be blocked if they posted (not reverted) more than three times a day on the talk page. Gordon forgot, and was blocked, which he accepted.

For sorting out this mess, I would say that first Calton needs to realize that treating others with respect does not cease to be obligatory just because you may regard someone as a problem user. Second, Gordon and Calton both need to be able to walk away without insisting on having the last word. Third, Gordon seems to understand that we're not going to allow those links, and he isn't edit warring over it. Some of the trouble could have been avoided if Calton, in removing the links, had refrained from making false accusations, and had then refrained from accusing him of lying, and calling him Gordy-boy. If this project of collaborating in building a free encyclopaedia is to work, we really do need to avoid unkindness. Musical Linguist 03:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is little to add to ML's extensive comments above; she understands Gordon as an editor as well as anyone. I deliberately stopped editing Terri Schiavo almost a year ago because of the drain on time; while frequently befuddled by his massive talk posts, I never felt Gordon acted with malice or the intent to disrupt. (The same cannot be said of all on that page.) On the contrary: I feel he is a genuinely well-meaning editor and I've appreciated many of his heartful posts.

But. Like the friend who talks through the movie, a person may not intend disruption but still be disruptive. We have to consider the fact that the benefits Gordon can potentially bring to TS pages are outweighed by the difficulties of his presence. After browsing the above, I'd also support TS-related editing ban, but absolutely cannot support a community ban. As has been noted, these may be one in the same thing, as Gordon only edits to TS. I'm sorry for that, but there are better things to do than parse the massive talk posts that Gordon's editing creates. Marskell 20:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Motion to close

I think we have as much data as we need, and propose that we move towards closure. There seem to me to be four ways forward. Please indicate preferences (e.g. first choice and second choice):

Limit to one post per day on Schiavo-related talk pages

Users endorsing this, sign below

1. First choice. No need to ban him entirely from Schiavo. His edits to the article are not disruptive, and are often helpful, and he seems to accept that his personal links may not be added (although he doesn't agree). His recent disruption on the talk page was at least partly because Calton made a false accusation and was not generous enough to withdraw it, as I have explained above. Musical Linguist 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

   One small question and a half: The question: What if someone asks me a few questions: Should i not be able to respond? Secondly (Half-question) If I am not as bad a user/editor as, say, Calton, why would anyone in their fair mind fairly endorse more stringent restrictions on the victim -and leave the attacker alone to have less punishment? Eh?--GordonWatts 23:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

   You'd answer all of the questions currently raised in a single post or if you are pushed for time, the one you feel is most important - any other questioned raised after that you would answer in the next 24 hour period. You are STILL trying to have the last word on every single post here, STOP, it only evidences what is being said about you. --Fredrick day 23:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

   A community ban on Calton has not been discussed, and his behaviour is not more problematic with regard to Terri Schiavo than elsewhere. There is no particular reason to make a motion regarding Calton, as any administrator can block for disruptive personal attacks, and I would be prepared to do so if I see any more of those "revert not-very-bright troll" edit summaries. As regards responding to questions, you can wait until the next day. If an editor really wants an answer, he will probably ask you on your talk page rather than on the article talk page. Musical Linguist 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

   His recent disruption on the talk page was at least partly because Calton made a false accusation and was not generous enough to withdraw it, as I have explained above. Since it wasn't, you know, actually false, there's nothing to withdrawal. --Calton | Talk 06:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

2. First choice. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3. First choice, with the proviso that if there are repeated violations (let's say three violations in any twelve-month period) this will trigger the article and talk page ban described below. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
4. This could work. I'd suggest adding a qualifier that his talk page posts must be relevant to improving the article. I see recent talk page activity that is definitely off-topic. Friday (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
5. First choice, with the proviso that any other users described herein as having caused perceived or real trouble (at least Calton, and maybe more users) would have the same restrictions. If you do not endorse this proviso, then obviously, you, as a voting editor, are not being fair -but, rather, kicking a person while they are down (voting on an editor only because he is the subject here) -and that would seem to indicate that you should be placed into the same restrictions you recommend. I would add that this diff highlights PROOF POSITIVE that I am being treated unfairly: Never is a person denied the chance to simply respond to accusations, but this is exactly what many suggest to be done, so a support of this proviso here would correct the unfairness -and this (option with this, or a similar proviso) is, therefore, my first, and only choice.--GordonWatts 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

   Gordon, have you ever heard the phrase, "When you're in a hole, stop digging"? People aren't trying to deny you a chance to respond—you've done so at length already. Editors who have advised you to stop posting are offering that suggestion for your own good, as your remarks continue to highlight the very problems at which these sanctions are aimed.

   Calton's problem has never been that he's been prone to verbosity to the point that it disrupts talk pages and creates a nuisance, consequently there is no need to limit the amount of posting he does to talk pages. Such a remedy wouldn't make sense, as it wouldn't solve any perceived problem. Several admins have however advised Calton to take a more civil tone, an area where his conduct could stand some improvement. If enforcement action is required on that front, there are admins who will handle it. It is not your problem to deal with.

   Unless and until you understand that the personal dispute between you and Calton is a very tiny facet of the issue before us you are going to continue to have a rough time of it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

6. Second choice --Fredrick day 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Second choice. ChazBeckett 00:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
8. First choice. Martin | talk • contribs 07:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
   

   Although I would prefer it to be a 6000 words per week (net) limit, for everyone. —The preceding unsigned comment about 6,000 words was added by Martin at the same time he added his 'choice'.--GordonWatts 17:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   I've been rather quiet for the past couple of days (with just a few comments), so I hope no one minds I opine here: Martin, your idea seems good -and I'd say you kind of beat me to the punch. Let me explain: If I am prohibited from making 2 or 3 edits, then I would be unable to correct a typo. Also, Frederick seems to think I'd make a super long post if I were limited to one post. While I am usually NOT very talkative, I can understand his (valid and legitimately good) concern: The overall LENGTH of the talk page is problematic, and, ironically, I was commenting on that when I had to use SEVERAL edits (which would have been impossible had I been limited to one edit per day). So, to conclude: I am not taking a jab at ANYONE, but I think that if ANYTHING is done, then an informal limit on the total words per day per person on the talk pages would be appropriate -and, whatever is done must apply to all -or none at all. Respectfully submitted - (and capitol letter yelling notwithstanding) no offense meant.--GordonWatts 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   Get this straight Gordon, it's been repeated plenty of times - this has nothing at all to do with others, no limits will be placed on others because of this Community action. If you feel that community action needs to taken against someone - start the process, otherwise stop bring up that red herring. --Fredrick day 19:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   "start the process" I never said that I felt that community action needed to be started against my friend Martin Gugino, for what these two editors ([13] and [14]) think was excessive posting on the talk page. I simply said that I typically post far less than he did, and thus I do not feel that I should be treated worse then him -if the "excessive posting" on talk pages here is my only "crime." Did you actually look to see that this double-standard existed, Fredrick? Because, if you don't address this double standard (a valid issue, not a red herring), then you show unfair actions and bias. Here's the "take home message," Frederick: All was well (small flames had cooled down) when Calton filed this, and for you to continue to press for more action (by your comment above, the one I quoted here) is inappropriate; Sometimes the best thing to do is to do nothing. (Let me clarify: I am very frustrated at your myopic focus on this one editor (me) when other editors post far more than me on talk pages (my "crime"), but I do not wish to offend you; Simply put yourself in my shoes: Would you like it if you were treated any differently? OK, that said, regardless of whether or not I get any discipline, I do not wish to offend you, just speak my peace.--GordonWatts 02:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

   Missing the point again, but let's grant, for the sake of argument, that MartinGugino's alleged verbosity is an issue. The numbers, when added up, show as byte counts for Talk page comments as of February 20 on Talk:Terri Schiavo & Talk:Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case:

   MartinGugino: 24,641 bytes

   GordonWatts: 109,579 bytes

   Not even close.--Calton | Talk 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

   Looking at only one day is not significant evidence -look at the last several weeks -or hold still.--GordonWatts 06:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

1. First choice, good idea. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2. First choice. Sarah 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
3. First choice. rspeer / ???ds? 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
4. First choice. Leebo⁸⁶ 11:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Third choice - even one post a day like this is too many. MastCell 05:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Probation / mentorship

Users endorsing this, sign below

1. Second choice. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2. First choice. Mostly per Musical Linguist above (a shocker!), he's shown some promise and maybe just a little help is all he needs. If it doesn't work, it'll end up at my #2 choice anyway, which is where this is heading regardless of what we choose if things don't work out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Last choice. I'm quite skeptical of this. He's been editing for how long? And we think the problem is a lack of feedback about this editing? This seems unlikely to me. Friday (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Third choice. rspeer / ???ds? 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
5. First choice. As some have said on the first suggestion, this user has shown some good faith edits. However, he's also shown a few acts of WP:OWN and pushing external links which fail WP:EL. If someone could help him keep his edits in check, that would help. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 07:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban from articles and talk pages related to Terri Schiavo

Users endorsing this, sign below

1. Second choice Guy (Help!) 22:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2. First choice, as long as this includes related talk pages also. Otherwise it's not helpful. Friday (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3. First choice, again with the qualification offered by Friday. --Fredrick day 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
4. First choice, per Friday. ChazBeckett 00:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
5. First choice. I've now added "and talk pages" to the description of this section as it seems to be a significant majority opinion that that is an important part of the solution. Mangojuice^talk 01:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
6. First choice, per Friday. One post per day, knowing Gordon, will simply be the same nonsense except all of it packed into one excruciatingly long post. An improvement, but not by much. --Calton | Talk 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
7. First choice. I think it's best for him to make a clean break and prove himself elsewhere, if he's so inclined. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   No offense meant, Bull, but I've been around for many, many edits, and have proven myself as a peaceful (if perseverant) editor, and I am, quite frankly, too old to go around proving myself to no end for people who don't know me. That which you request of others might, itself, be forced upon you; Would you like it if people asked you to put forth much labor for such an unpaid job as having to continually prove yourself? Just curious...--GordonWatts 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   Gordon, what's being asked is for some evidence that you're willing to edit in a manner that doesn't result in lengthy discussions about your behavior. I happen to agree that moving away from Schiavo-related articles would be beneficial for you and the project. ChazBeckett 17:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   For one, even in my many thousands of edits, I usually have NO problems of ANY sort (be they about myself or otherwise) "what's being asked is for some evidence..." be careful what you ask for, Chaz, you just might get it. OK: Here's new info no previously submitted: This woman quite succinctly points out that I am not malicious, OK? THESE people on yet a THIRD forum agree (6th post from bottom): "Svaha wrote: <quoted text> I knew Gordon would. Deep down underneath all the crap he's piled on himself he's a nice guy. It surprised me with James. It's good to be surprised:-)". Enough? Why don't we ask about evidence about you? Would you like that? A presumption of guilt on your part here is inappropriate. I am (and you are) innocent until proven guilty. Did I give you the evidence you seek? (I found evidence from THREE forums that I am not a trouble-maker. Is they sufficient?)--GordonWatts 18:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think the request was for anecdotal evidence from non-Wikipedians. The idea is that you should expand your focus on Wikipedia outside of Terri Schiavo, and I agree that it would be beneficial. The numbers above indicated that you are limited in your Wikipedia experience outside Schiavo articles, and that was what was meant by "prove himself elsewhere" I believe. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   I have made many edits to non-Schiavo articles, both here at Wikipedia and elsewhere, fyi. Moreover, I have a real life and real duties (even more-non-Schiavo-related) -I don't expect that I shall edit or post much of anything anywhere anytime soon. So this is much ado about nothing.--GordonWatts 18:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   Well, that didn't go as hoped. Gordon, this is exactly the type of behavior that leads people to support editing restrictions on you. I wrote two sentences in attempt to summarize what I believe this discussion boiled down to and you responded with a whole paragraph of quotes from unrelated messageboards and a quite antagonistic attitude towards me. The point is that your behavior is causing problems here, even if it's completely unintentional. Countless people have tried to offer advice, but your response is usually similar to the one I received. Just try listening to what others are saying instead of immediately crafting a rebuttal. Believe it or not, most people are trying to help you here. In any case, I've said all I have to say. Ignore it if you wish, but please don't respond to it. ChazBeckett 18:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   "responded with a whole paragraph" - excuse me, but it was only 6 lines -only 4 more than you wrote -but that is appropriate -because there are like 4 or 5 editors responding to me; So, since I am in all liklihood responding with less words than are being directed at me (remember: You asked me a question, so I answered), I am not out of order. Also, what difference does it make IF I make a rebuttal? As the accused, I SHOULD be allowed the last word, but I think I'll let you have it -if you want it so badly.--18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

8. First choice. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Second choice. Please see my reasoning under Community ban. Moreover, any point he had to make about the Schiavo articles has surely been made (many times over) by now. ObiterDicta 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
10. First choice. Kyle Barbour 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Second choice. Sarah 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Second choice. rspeer / ???ds? 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Second choice. Leebo⁸⁶ 11:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
14. First choice, especially in light of ongoing stuff like this. Although the topic ban should probably be time-limited (e.g. 3-6 months). MastCell 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

    It's one thing for you to complain about my one 500+ word post here, but did you actually read it? If you claim that my posts are too long, I will not buy your argument -simply for three reasons: #1: In the last 2-3 days, my posts on this page have been only a small portion of the total; #2: In recent times (not just the past few days), I have not edited as much as Martin, and he is not criticised for anything related to editing too much, so I should not be either. #3: Usually, my posts are only a small portion (or at least not disruptive -as shown by the fact that even after over 4,000 edits, I have had no discipline, bans, blocks, or anything (except one minor misunderstanding, and one "spite" block for one-second -as ML explained above). So, based on the facts (length of my posts) and my clean record -and the fact you apparently haven't even educated yourself or read all the posts in question, I don't accept your argument. If you read my posts, then you can comment on them. If I have had no major discipline AT ALL, then any generalisation about labeling/implying I'm a trouble-maker -is absolutely myopicly short-sighted and false.--GordonWatts 06:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban

Users endorsing this, sign below

1. Second choice; I see little reason for Arbcom here. Friday (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Second choice, per Friday. --Calton | Talk 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Second choice. I think he's sufficiently disruptive within that particular context that even a moderated degree of interaction with Schiavo-related topics is likely to have a negative effect. If we can't ban him from the topic but leave him free to act elsewhere, we should just politely show him the door. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Second choice. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   I have a dumb question (I'll direct at Jeff, since he's an admin, but anyone can answer it), so please don't get mad -as I don't know the answer: Jeff here voted, yet the policy (at the very top of this page) clearly states that "While comments from all editors are welcome, please note that "voting" won't be taking place, including on proposed community bans" -how do we reconcile these dichotomies? Thanks in advance?--GordonWatts --18:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

5. Very reluctant first choice. I was ready to go with the "one post a day" option—but better defined, as Gordon has a tendency to interpret rulings (as this sort of is) and comments rather inventively and to his advantage and to wikilawyer tendentiously. However, then I saw this in his endorsement of the first choice: having caused perceived or real trouble. [emphasis mine] So, despite numerous people telling him his behavior needs correction he still thinks he acts appropriately. This is not a case of an editor who gets carried away on Schiavo-related articles needing to be saved from himself; he thinks that repeatedly posting long multi-coloured rants and repeating points over-and-over again in the face of a consensus against him in an attempt at attaining his goals through attrition is acceptable. I see no reason to let him carry this behaviour to other topics. ObiterDicta 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   "posting long multi-coloured rants" I'm not the only person who posts lengthy posts on occasion, but I usually either post short posts -or none at all in talk. Also, what's with the multi-coloured comment? You can not be prejudiced? Color has its place (and is, therefore, sometimes used), and unless others complain about this point a lot, you are out of order and mostly alone here. "tendency to interpret rulings" You don't read the case here much, attorney: Most of the evidence is that most of my posts have NOTHING to do with my comments on my court petition for Terri Schiavo. PS: No one answered my question to Jeff about the fact we're all voting -even though the rules on this page prohibit such.--18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   I rest my case. ObiterDicta 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

6. Second choice. Kyle Barbour 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Refer to ArbCom

Users endorsing this, sign below

1. Third choice Guy (Help!) 22:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Mangojuice^talk 01:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3. First choice. There is no consensus of wikipedia editors to do anything in this case. You have under ten people saying he should be restricted to one edit per day on Terry Schiavo. A group this size is not empowered to do anything other than use wikipedia's dispute resolution process. You guys aren't on arbcom. If you want to decide things like this run for arbcom, don't act as if this is a sanctioned all-comers arbcom (just think how biased that could get). Arbcom should also be amenable to Gordon, as it is about as fair as thing gets at wikipedia. Any counter claims can also be evaluated there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.91.28.232 (talk • contribs).
4. Second choice, see above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Third choice. If Gordon's to be let anywhere near the Schiavo articles, restrictions on his behaviour need to be better spelled out than the first choice above, as Gordon has a tendency toward inventive interpretations of decisions and wikilawyering. ArbCom is the best place to craft such restrictions. ObiterDicta 18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Second choice. Usually community bans are for those who have continued to exhaust community patience beyond all other forms of resolution. This looks like a good arbcom case --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 07:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Second choice - agree with User:ObiterDicta. MastCell 05:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Auxiliary straw poll

Given that Gordon still hasn't gotten the message (as and persists in this comment from today, ...It seems in these links above that a small consensus [emphasis mine] exists to exclude the materials, and I accept that, but, at the same time, I keep the material under review, and my "vote" as it were, is "include" for every single delete above...), I say that an unambiguous declaration that an actual consensus -- not Gordon's claim of "small consensus" -- is needed. Some of you think he can learn: let's see. --Calton | Talk 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton - there are already too many polls. This is not a productive use of one's time. (I mean just look at this section: MOST of it is by other editors, so when someone claims I post a lot, it is an obvious lie: Here is proof -some numbers for you and my other critics: I just parsed this section (the "Motion to close" and "Auxiliary straw poll" 'voting' section), and what I find is quite enlightening: Even though, by all rights, I should be able to offer the same length of defense as my critics' prosecution, a quick parse of this section shows that, before this edit, there were 3,058 words by other editors, and only 5,225 total, that is, I only wrote 2,167 words in defense to the 3,058 words of the other editors, so I should get 891 more words, but I am not talkative or verbose, and I shall only use these additional comments to defend my point, brining my total only up to 2,300, far below that of the other verbose editors.) People have enough difficulty actually reading the comments posted -it is not necessary to solicit new votes: We've already "voted" above -and, in direct conflict with the Wikipedia policy, which, at the top of this page, clearly states: "While comments from all editors are welcome, please note that "voting" won't be taking place..."--GordonWatts 07:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

1. No, the links fail WP:EL, WP:RS, and WP:COI.--Calton | Talk 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2. so much for the idea that he's given up on his POV/COI-pushing. Isn't it clear by now that his plan is to keep pushing until editors who oppose his pages have enough and just leave? Can we not just blacklist his free-hosted webpages and kill this one stone dead? --Fredrick day 06:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Agree. And blacklisting is a good idea, Fredrick. But keep in mind that he maintains multiple mirrors of the same exact stuff across multiple websites and page hosts. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
4. This is another example of attempting to wikilawyer around our accepted understandings of voting, consensus, and the policies/guidelines revolving around his external links. Leebo⁸⁶ 11:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Yup. The links should not be added, as has been explained to him repeatedly. They should be put on the spam blacklist for good measure. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
6. As much as it pains me to agree with Calton, I have to in this case. Personal websites can not be used as reference. Now, for example if Calton referenced Gordon's websites, that would be OK, but Gordon can't reference his own website. I had the same problem when I referenced my media website for a article. Someone else could reference my site but I couldn't reference it myself. The FL Supreme Court links, I think could stay, but that is a gray area. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 20:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

   Although I would think that many would disagree that the sites should be linked (no matter who does it), as they are not reliable sources. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

   Also, the idea that someone else could add them worries me, as it could encourage Gordon to continue to lobby for their addition. Leebo⁸⁶ 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

   Yeah, that's exactly what this was supposed to stop. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

   I completely understand what you all are trying to say....but personal websites shouldn't be allowed. My site is a media news site...kinda different. But no personal (GeoCities, etc) sites should be referenced by anyone. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

   "but personal websites shouldn't be allowed. My site is a media news site...kinda different. But no personal (GeoCities, etc) sites should be referenced by anyone" Orange Monster, my friend, just because a website is on Geocities or Members.aol.com does not make it a "personal" or a "news" site; Also, since I address this myth more fully below, I shall not respond here and duplicate myself.--GordonWatts 07:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

   Right... it sounded like you were saying that Gordon's (personal) site would be okay if someone else added it to the article. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

   It did, didn't it? Sorry about that. I rush when I type sometimes:). - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 20:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

7. I support this. Gordon's links to his personal site do not belong in Wikipedia. I'd hope that he can simply respect the consensus against them, but put them on the blacklist if it becomes necessary. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Blacklisting isn't the answer; what I view as the real problem here is that Gordon is trying to Wikilawyer to continuing a dead discussion, far beyond the community's patience. Mangojuice^talk 03:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
9. I agree that Gordon's newspaper and personal sites are not suitable for use as external links or reliable sources. Sarah 04:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

   Now, hold on just a second, Sarah: You told me here that "Gordon, if you wish to discuss the validity of using certain links or lobby for policy change, you need to do that in the appropriate forum. Advocating for it and offering it as compromise in the middle of discussion of a proposal to ban you is not the right place. " And, I accepted your proposal here, where I redacted the comments via "strike-out," OK? So, if you wish for me to not discuss this matter here, why do you think it's OK for you to push and persist? To be guilty of a double-standard? (And, you are not the worst offender at all: Look at all the others who signed above advocating the same issue -even though this is NOT the proper forum for it -even as you rightly said.) However, if you all want to discuss the issue, then I shall ask you all one question, and I shall await the answer: If this and this are the only reporters to have reported on something -that really did happen -and CAN be verified by calling Terri Schiavo's parents and asking them, then who should we use as a source? If you say "no one," then you are being a bad historian; if you say "Gordon and Cheryl," then I accept these as more verifiable than Jayson Blair, and he *was* verifiable enough to publish his story; If you say someone else, then I ask who would be the source.--GordonWatts 06:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

10. The blacklist is a tool which should probably be employed here, although it doesn't address the underlying problem, which is a failure to recognize and respect consensus. MastCell 06:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This section & related subsections are getting so long, that I'm not going to attempt to reply in the correct places, but I just want to know one thing: Has every single person here actually read each and every post on this page regarding this case? Can you look me in the face and certify honestly that you've read all of my replies? The reason I ask is because if you haven't actually read the advocacy for all sides, then you can't fairly claim you're informed enough to opine or vote with any accuracy. Ten of Trades got onto me recently for occasionally repeating points (I usually try not to repeat myself, but it does sometimes happen). I understand his concern: I should never have to repeat myself, but I find myself confronting editors who state falsehoods (see below where musical Linguist corrected one such falsehood) apparently haven't read the case and facts, and I feel like repeating myself. For example, I've stated that some editors in this discussion act like they know all about me and suggest my main (or only) purpose on Wikipedia is to promote my webpages -and that myth prevailed (due to editors not having enough thoroughness to review the facts) until Musical Linguist correctly pointed out that VERY FEW of my edits have anything at all to do with my webpages. Also, I'd like to know something: If http://GordonWatts.com is my personal page, why do people still refer to http://Members.aol.com/Gww1210 as my personal webpage. This is a newspaper -and whether it meets your criteria for WP:Verifiability or not, the fact remains: This is not a personal website, no matter how many times you say it, and for you to keep saying it implies you are either trying to insult me, continue to push this as an issue, or are simply not willing to be informed. Another thing that annoys me: People are complaining about my supposed verbosity, when my friend Martin posts a lot more on the talk page in question -even though I admit Calton is correct in claiming that occasionally I have posted more than Martin. Oh, and one last thing: Before anyone complains about the length of my post, please note: My posts have been only a SMALL PART of the total posts in the last 2-3 days, OK? Could you please actually READ my post here (and my prior posts) before commenting? Also, please review the last 100 edits or so of mine before this debacle -or else you won't be able to legitimately say you know anything about me.--GordonWatts 06:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Essay vs. Soapboxing

Where does one end and where does the other begin. If an essay is created, then it is open to editors to change by consensus, but how far can it change? Can consensus change an essay into something opposing it's original position? If an essay is just one person's point of view and many other disagree then should that essay stand?

I know several of you know exactly which essay I have in mind, however, please lets keep this general, because my interest in this topic goes beyond any one essay. This is something I think needs to be more clearly spelled out. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. I've noticed that essays in the Wikipedia space tend to retain their original points of view, most of the time (and yes, this is one time when we are not strictly NPOV, by consensus) -- however, they are indeed open to "merciless editing." Essays in the user space are generally safe from this. An essay in the Wikipedia space is not actually protected by any policy I know from being changed completely from its original intent--it just doesn't happen that way most of the time. Most of the time. Perhaps we've found an exception. Antandrus (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Essays in the user space are generally safe from this.", I must disagree, people don't own their userspace, and an essay in that space should be treated as common property just as much as any other place, unless I am very wrong. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

to Quote from WP:PG --

An essay is any page that is not actionable or instructive, regardless of whether it's authorized by consensus. Essays tend to be opinionated. Essays need not be proposed or advertised, you can simply write them, as long as you understand that you do not generally speak for the entire community. If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace. It does not follow that any page that is not a policy or a guideline is therefore an essay; there are plenty of pages in the Wikipedia namespace that are none of the three.

This does appear to make it acceptiable to "own" an essay in your user space. Gnangarra 19:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

...after edit conflict with the above...

I'm afraid you're very wrong, but don't take it too hard. :D As a matter of courtesy, essays in userspace are generally left as the author wrote them, and merciless editing – unless specifically invited – is frowned upon. Putting an essay in one's own userspace is way of saying, "This is my opinion". It's not polite for a third party to come along and say, "Your opinion is incorrect/stupid/badly expressed, so I rewrote it for you. You'll like your new opinion much better."

This is not to say that community standards don't apply to userspace. If someone writes an essay with the theme 'The following Wikipedians are assholes', then it would be appropriate to step in and ask them to change or delete the page. There's also nothing which prevents an editor from copying an essay from another user's space (everything here is under the GFDL, after all) and modifying it to suit themselves.

Honestly though, I think that it's even silly to edit war over essays in Wikipedia space. If you disagree with an opinion piece, then write a rebuttal or a statement of support for a contrary position. Add appropriate links to the 'See also' sections of each essay, and you're done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional guidelines from Wikipedia:User_page#How do I create a user subpage

There are several common uses for user subpages:

3.To delineate views on Wikipedia, its functioning, or behavior of Wikipedians in general.

This also supports the position that essay in user space are acceptiable. It's considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page and subpages without their permission, however the space does still belong to the community Gnangarra 19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

HighinBC, clarification: I meant that people generally don't edit them, not that they can't or shouldn't. Antandrus (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So I could create an essay in my userspace presenting my own POV, and expect it to not be subjected to alternate points of view? That is a privilege I would rather do without, I would go to a web hosting site if I wanted to put something like that up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that POV is only inherently a bad thing when it comes to text of articles. Essays and user pages may absolutely reflect a certain point of view. IMO, essays you write in your own user space are mostly ignored anyway.. but if you do go far outside of community norms, such a page may wind up at WP:MFD. In Wikipedia space, it would be more likely to generate debate and rewriting, but in user space, it's pretty much request deletion or nothing. Mangojuice^talk 20:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mostly, yes. If you don't want to exercise that privilege, of course you're welcome to put your own opinion essays elsewhere. In general we allow people a reasonable amount of freedom in their own userspace, as long as they're not disrupting the project and as long as they are making useful contributions.

Note that in general there's much more tolerance for Wikipedia-related essays. If someone is using their userspace solely to publish political screeds, as an outlet for original research, or to attack other editors, then intervention is more likely. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that essays in userspace should really be edited, at least in the main text. In essence, the individual is saying, "These are my views on this given issue." It doesn't make much sense for another person to come by and say, "No, these are your views and insights on this issue." If anything, creating to or adding a response or criticism section seems like a better avenue for input. Or, at least, I would take it as strongly implied that if I had an essay, say, evaluating Wikipedia in my userspace that it would have an implicit prefix of "bitnine's analysis of..." It's not an issue of ownership, just that there is an implicit attribution there, and someone else altering an essay is somewhat akin to editing a (POV or not) quotation. I'd say you should consider refraining from altering a userspace essay in the same manner you'd consider refraining from altering an attributed quotation. At best, qualifiers or responses should be added to provide a context. Bitnine 10:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And as an additional note, I don't think this necessarily meshes entirely with the general dampening on soapboxing. Wikipedia is definitely not the place to go on about your least favorite racial group or your favorite political party. You should go somewhere else if the subject of an essay is unrelated in such a manner. That sort of thing is going to be detrimental without much in the ways of redeeming features. However, being able to discuss your views on and analysis of Wikipedia (I think, at least) is something necessary and beneficial to the project. That isn't to say that such essays can't be bad or even disruptive, but a categorical declaration probably shouldn't be made. Bitnine 10:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting issue - I'm aware of an essay (in Wiki space) which was created essentially as a snip of comments a second person left on an unrelated talk page. While GFDL clearly says one releases their content to be used for any purpose, I am not really sure whether the writer of the actual comment can expressly withhold permission for a talk page comment to be incorporated as somebody else's essay (albeit with appropriate attribution). Any ideas? Orderinchaos78 05:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So to summarise the salient points:

• Essays are used for people to express their opinion about Wikipedia (but not about other things, because that would be soapboxing);
• Essays in the project namespace are open to editing like any other page, whereas essays written by a user in their own user space are customarily not edited as they are meant to represent one individual's point of view;
• Wherever they may be located, essays must adhere to the behavioural policies, just like any other page.

Add to this if I've missed anything important. --bainer (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

See the history of WP:AUM for a previous instance of this. Essentially, in both cases an essay was created and largely WP:OWNed by one person, while several other users strongly disagreed with the 'facts and conclusions' it drew... and definitely didn't want it to be used as a basis for changes in policy or practice. There was edit warring, moving of the page to user space and back, blocks, incivility, et cetera.

My own take is that if one, or a few, users want to maintain an essay in Wikipedia space to present a particular point of view and will not accept revisions or corrections which challenge that viewpoint then the essay should be marked as 'rejected'. It is something which is not agreed to by a consensus of Wikipedians... ergo it is rejected. The arguments can remain displayed, but it is indicated that they aren't accepted as being valid. --CBD 17:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the particular instance in question would have been handled better by ignoring it, as most of the weaker essays in Wikipedia namespace do get ignored. Failing that, at the point where WP:OWN began to become an issue a polite suggestion to the essay's creator to pagemove into user space would have been appropriate. As a practical matter, the community does give greater respect for the original author when an essay is in user space because that generally represents a personal perspective rather than a shared perspective. Two that I've started, for instance, are Wikipedia:No angry mastodons and User:Durova/Recusal. Although theoretically the same policies apply, it would be hard to imagine another editor doing much to the latter page. Most of all, whenever someone writes a critical essay that gains real attention we ought to be asking ourselves why this strikes a nerve. Is there some kernel of truth to it? And if so, how do we address the substance of the complaint? Durova^Charge! 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In that particular instance, the user in question commenced a long-running edit-war citing his essay as justification: he even managed to persuade some sympathetic admins to unblock him when he was caught doing it. Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance was written off the back of it after a quote from Brion—which he later repudiated—was used to prop up WP:AUM and justify the edit- and wheel-warring. In that case, trying to ignore it would not have been an acceptable option. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor point - actually the quote used to 'prop up / justify' AUM came from Jamesday rather than Brion. As to the substance, is ignoring a page linked from high traffic websites "an acceptable option"? :] --CBD 12:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the essay template seems to note that well enough, without the stamp of a large red X at the top of someone's thoughts. Specifically applying a rejected tag seems like the sort of thing that's very likely to generate combativeness and nonproductive exchanges. Bitnine 19:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in agreement with Bitnine on that. Template:Essay already clearly marks something as an opinion. It expressly indicates that the page's contents are not to be taken as policy or a guideline. Slapping a Template:Rejected on – or worse, edit warring to make it stick – just seems likely to inflame a dispute. (The community has decided that your opinion is unworthy—so nyah!) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bitnine makes a good point. The community handles most of the weaker essays through benign neglect. Maybe an MFD housecleaning would be a good idea across the category for flawed and minimal value essays in Wikipedia namespace. Durova^Charge! 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, marking something 'rejected' can spark bad feelings / edit wars / et cetera. However, when those things already exist and the essay contains not just a disputed POV, but things which people argue are factually false it's not an unreasonable step if corrections aren't going to be allowed. --CBD 12:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll take a step back and take a look at this conceptually. An essay in Wikispace should probably serve to note a line of thought in the community and be subject to editing. If I post an essay "WikiWidgets are awesome" where 20% of the community thinks that widgets are awesome, it is helpful to note this position and that it is not held by the majority of the community. By posting it in Wikispace, I'm sending a flag to have it edited and refined by users with similar views, or even fact-checking and refinement by critical editors. The nature of an essay, however, is inherently tied to expressing a viewpoint. If you don't share this viewpoint, rather than trying to alter the essay to "WikiWidgets Suck", it's probably better to add a section on criticism or how the viewpoint is not held by the majority of the community.

Really, I think this is a better representation because in all actuality, the viewpoints expressed by essays generally do exist and should not be subject to negation, even if unpopular. This doesn't mark them as exempt from criticism, but I think that the challenge is expressing and acknowledging such criticism in a healthy and constructive manner. While I'm talking about abstract ideals and examples, I think that a very good avenue in the context of the above would be adding a small section discussing the criticism/popularity of the view on WikiWidgets and a link to a well founded and written essay of "Failings of WikiWidgets." At the very least, I'd hold this as highly preferable to edit warring and other sorts of extended conflicts on essays. Bitnine 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the above makes good sense. The problem here was an outbreak of lameness which would have been better solved if people (me included) had just sat back and thought about it for a while - no, actually, what should have happened is it should have been protected at an earlier point to stop the silliness. But whatever. However, the end result is fine - we have the essay, we have the contradictory perspective. No harm done. We learn a bit about how to handle this stuff in future, and move on. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban?

Does anyone have any objections as to community banning Jacknicholson aka Marshal2.0 aka Marshalbannana and any new sock that appears? He has:

1. Edit warred at various articles, breaking 3RR with his accounts and with a range of dynamic IPs in order to insert silly videos or blatantly false information.
2. Deleted 3RR reports concerning him from the noticeboard
3. Attacked various users, notably User:jesup, creating the Marshall2.0 accounts to make a WP:POINT sock accusation against him
4. Repeatedly vandalised my and others' pages (my entire userspace is semiprotected as of now) using several dozen dynamic IPs all originating from BellSouth

He has not:

1. Actually done anything useful

The last bit of userspace-related vandalism is discussed here, and I'm pretty sure that it's the same user as the vandalism took place outside of school hours and from adresses all originating from the same ISP, as well as with intervals of at least a few minutes between each addition. yandman

Hi Yandman, could you justify indefinitely blocking them as vandalism / troll only accounts? If so, I would suggest you go ahead. Addhoc 12:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to block MarshallBanana indef anyway for the reasons stated above, I just prefer it to be a community ban so as to make processing the next sock that appears faster. yandman 12:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal-only accounts can be banned without community consensus. Durova^Charge! 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, my mistake. I'll "charge" then... yandman 19:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This is not a "vandal-only" account, he appears to have edited several articles on the Iraq War. While this might be "edit warring", you haven't put together any evidence to that effect (and I've yet to see a one-sided edit war ... who were the other parties?). The vandalism link above is from an anon IP, not from this user. Even if it runs out the anon and Marshall are one and the same, this would be vandalism, not vandal-only. Time-limited blocks would be appropriate. Being "pretty sure" is not a good enough cause for either a ban or a block. And btw, find a disinterested admin to do the block and/or consider using wikipedia's arbitration process, otherwise it looks like you are getting into a battle with an editor then using your admin powers to kick him out forever. There certainly is no strong consensus to ban this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.28.232 (talk • contribs)

"Pretty sure", no. "Absolutely certain", yes. And I am disinterested, as I've never edited any of the articles in question. I found out about this guy after several userpages were vandalised with images of cocks, and they all had at one time reverted edits by Marshall/Jacknicholson. yandman 11:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This page's intro

Someone with more tech skill than I have should probably make a few adjustments. A link to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing would be good along with a reminder that community bans for disruption are based on a consensus of uninvolved editors. Editors who've had conflict with the user in question may comment and supply evidence, but they should not attempt to vote upon the outcome. Durova^Charge! 18:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, is that how it's supposed to work? I've been ignoring all the ban talk here because I wasn't involved in any of it, and frankly the bickering was annoying me. If it's supposed to be run the way you say, I may very well pay more attention. —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 14:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, the key to getting WP:DR established as a guideline was that it established a consensus of uninvolved editors as the requirement. Otherwise there's a serious danger of good people getting railroaded out of the project. Editors who participate here ought to get a reminder about that - not all of them are as experienced as the sysops who populated most of these discussions when they were at WP:AN and WP:ANI. Durova^Charge! 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jonathan ryan indef blocked

This user has been indefinitely blocked for persistent image copyright violations, despite numerous warnings on his talk page over many months asking him to stop. One place that he's been taking images is airliners.net where their material clearly states their images are copyrighted and who the photographer is (usually different people for multiple images). Nonetheless, Jonathan says he's the author of all the images. Most recently, he is strongly suspected of using sock puppets. I have spent the past hour going through his contributions and deleting his recent copyright violations, and spent substantial time back in October doing the same. He has exhausted my (and I think community patience) with his persistent blatant violations of copyright policies. I think this is a pretty clearcut case, but want to note it here in case anyone disagrees with the block. --Aude (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone purposely violating copyrights like that must not be tolerated. I support this. Mangojuice^talk 03:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I like to see specific evidence supplied when I decide whether to support a block. If this is verified then I'm on board. Durova^Charge! 03:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

See his talk page which is filled with numerous warnings about image copyright violations, which started out as good faith, polite messages [15] [16] explaining what is allowed and not (e.g. taking images from other websites), and other warnings [17]. To see behavior continuing is problematic for Wikipedia. His contributions (vanity issues) to terrorism-related articles are a bit disturbing too [18], but likely false. --Aude (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Block this user. Geo. Talk to me 06:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• If there are many violations and the user has been warned, this user should immediately be banned, but not on "community" grounds. And, if you want to put this here, please provide links to evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.91.28.232 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Whether this user is blocked or not, his page displays every hijacker from the September 11 WTC attacks. I would like to move it so people don't see it unexpectedly. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Aude (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nkras banned

Nkras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now formally under a community ban, so further discussing a closed matter is pointless. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nkras (see socks) has been returning to get his various IPs blocked for various abuses,[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] including threats of meatpuppetry on Talk:Marriage (which were repeatedly deleted and which User:Rbj has restored and "taken ownership of"; I've asked Rbj to stop and I currently expect that he will comply[25]). Anyway, if I understand correctly, Nkras has not yet been formally banned by the community. With the threats, and five six blocks in three four days, and the previous widespread sentiment that everyone's patience was exhausted (ANI archive), I think it's time we got around to formalizing that ban. — coelacan talk — 08:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone clarify whether it's good or bad wikiquette to ask the blocking admins to weigh in here? I'd like to do so but not if it's ill-advised. — coelacan talk — 08:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • While I can't speak for policy, it does seem that administrators are still members of the community. Justin Eiler 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, my concern would be whether or not this would be canvassing. — coelacan talk — 23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly support ban from firsthand observation of Nkras' conduct. He was given several chances before the block was made indefinite, and each time returned to his old ways of revert-warring and incivility. After the block was extended to indefinite, he's threatened sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry by editing anonymously [26], and repeatedly revert-warred after this comment was removed as inappropriate to put it back. This makes it very clear that he has absolutely no intent of contributing constructively, and will continue to gleefully cause disruption as long as he's allowed to do it. Nkras has thoroughly exhausted the great deal of patience shown him, and there's no other way this can end. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Bold text unbolded to avoid this turning into a vote. Viridae^Talk 12:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• I certainly support a ban. It's become too tiresome trying to undo the damage he and his sockpuppets have done, and trying to reason with him is an exercise in futility. Jeffpw 14:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• As the target of some of his incivil behavior, I support a ban. This sort of thing simply can't be tolerated. Sockpuppets/meatpuppets should be easy enough to spot and deal with. --Coredesat 15:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• I strongly support a ban. Nkras appears to admit to the use of IP sockpuppets here, where he attempts to justify his actions. WjBscribe 16:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• I would prefer to get a WP:RFCU before conclusively supporting a ban on Nkras. I definitely support a ban on the person behind the anon accounts, but would prefer more evidence before associating the two, at least in my mind. Please disregard my previous reticence--I am (after this edit) firmly persuaded that this anon user is Nkras, and fully in support of a community ban. Justin Eiler 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In light of this edit, I would say that the gauntlet has been thrown down. Justin Eiler 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Did you notice this edit where I struck out the sentence, thereby retracting? 63.229.192.53 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely agree with the ban, what with "your rules and policies are not binding upon me" and "war has been declared". --John Kenneth Fisher 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I had crossed the statement out and therefore retracted. You are again being intellectually dishonest, and not presenting a complete statement of fact. This is a usual tactic, and is consistently used against me. Here is another complete statement:

""disruptive behaviour"? IOW, dissenting and challenging the authority of the protected editors, articles, and WikiProjects. I tried to play the game, however, members of my socio-political and religious caste aren't welcome here. We challenge the prevailing groupthink. There are even editors who smugly delete posts and remove traces of editors - well - former editors - in a way that parallels the fate of those who defied the State in 1984. Because Google search results present Wikipedia articles at the top of the heap, with the control of articles on core social issues as marriage, et. al., by the cultural left, post-modernists, LGBT and GS or what ever you call them this millenia, it is all the more insidious. I take this threat to objective truth very seriously, as I do with the aggregious insult to my religion by coelacan. I have been called to account for my political and religious views, but protected editors - coelacan being one example - has never been blocked for a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. That is why your rules and policies are not binding upon me. 63.228.54.148 05:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)" 63.229.192.53 23:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, Fisher, et. al. are amongst the worst of the cyberauthoritarians I have ever come across. Wikipedia is a pleasantly authoritarian state, a protected class enforces the rules as they see fit. 63.229.192.53 23:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is nicely supplemented by this abuse. — coelacan talk — 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A understandable, frustrated reaction to an arrogant editor. Now, about your violations of WP:CIVIL. When will that be addressed by those present, and by Administrators? 63.229.192.53 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have never insulted Nkras's religion. — coelacan talk — 23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: For the record, coelacan attributed that I stated that treif is kosher:
  "Eating pork is kosher.... You have been so advised. Be guided accordingly." — Nkras, on kashrut and the Talmud [6]
  "Learn how to quote accurately and in context. I removed a selectively edited quote on your user page that resulted in an intellectually dishonest presentation of one of my arguments." — Nkras, on new developments in Talmudic scholarship (and vandalism of the preceding quote) [7] [8]
  Both entries are from coelacan's user space. Why hasn't WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA been ever enforced against coelacan? Is that editor somehow exempt from a month long block? Or any block? Or any responsibility? 63.229.192.53 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there's anything wrong with those quotes. They provide direct links to your full statements. And this matter is discussed in more detail at User talk:Coelacan#Nkras quotes. — coelacan talk — 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: This is your use of selective quotation:

"Eating pork is kosher.... You have been so advised. Be guided accordingly."

Here is the complete quote:

"I will not agree to any "consensus": a group of editors could reach a consensus that eating pork is kosher, though it remains treif."

You, therefore, constructed a false statement to bring derision upon another editor and that editor's religion: it is a blatant attack, a violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and possibly other Wikipedia policies. You have not been called to account for this attack, nor have you removed the material from your user space. 63.229.192.53 00:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I note that I forgot to suggest a duration for the ban. Given that Nkras has in the past stated, "I will not agree to any "consensus"",[27] and has subsequently demonstrated that indeed he has no intention of ever editing by consensus, I propose that the ban be indefinite. — coelacan talk — 21:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A community ban is, by definition and convention, indefinite. Just to spite you... :-) --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. WP:BAN doesn't seem to make that clear; it discusses "durations" several times with no mention of that caveat that I can see. — coelacan talk — 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: For the record, here is the entire quote in context, which coelacan excluded:

" "Same-sex marriage" is not a subset of marriage, because it is not marriage. It is a wholly fabricated construct. Members of the same sex cannot get married, because they are not of the opposite sex. To demand the inclusion of "same sex marriage" in the Marriage article is pushing a political and social agenda, is the destruction of language, and an attempt to push a POV that is already evident in the Same-sex marriage article. As a compromise, I will agree to the inclusion of a section about "Redefinition of Marriage" where references to "same-sex marriage" can exist, subordinate to the intent of the article. I will not agree to any "consensus": a group of editors could reach a consensus that eating pork is kosher, though it remains treif. The editors may think they are correct because they have reached a consensus - and they would be wrong nonetheless. Destroying language and the definition of marriage is not acceptable under any circumstances. "

63.229.192.53 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As always, I provided a direct link to your full statement.[28] There's no "context" to this except more abuse, but feel free to insist that everyone read everything you ever wrote. — coelacan talk — 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment, however, does not address your use of selective quotations to distort the intent of the author, nor of the continuing existence of the attack against Judaism on your userspace. That is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. 63.228.44.65 00:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll just repeat what I wrote 2 weeks ago:

Absolutely, 100% endorse the block as someone who attempted to engage in discourse with him/her the first time around. Clear POV pusher who would edit war and POV fork his/her way to getting his definitions of marriage in, believing them to be immutable truth, and, as above, refusing to accept any contrary consensus.

As an aside, could someone explain why this blocked user is being allowed to evade his/her block and post here? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Bbatsell, perhaps it's because none of use here have those shiny buttons you have at your disposal. Wanna show us how to use them????? Jeffpw 00:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:P I thought I saw some admins up above, but I guess they chimed in awhile back. Blocked. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Per the above discussion and past threads regarding this matter, Nkras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is henceforth banned from editing Wikipedia by the community. All edits made by Nkras and/or his sockpuppets may be reverted and such IPs and accounts may be blocked per WP:BAN. I know not of how these circumstances came to place, so could someone be kind and write up an entry in WP:BU for Nkras? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added an entry for him. Others may wish to double check it and see if it needs fine-tuning but I think it covers the relevant details. WjBscribe 00:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now been threatened with legal action per my institution of this ban. As this is only my second time instituting a community ban, I may need some guidance regarding this matter. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I have less knowledge of Community bans than you do. But I am a lawyer. I can't see how your community ban can possibly lead to any legal action in any court. For starters what loss has this person suffered? And how can there be defamation when his real name is not known- defamation of a username?

In any event, you were required to judge concensus not make your own decision (or finding of fact as claimed). The fact that you were not aware of the details of the original dispute (and were therefore impartial) makes you a good choice to determine the concensus of this discussion not a bad one.

Oh, and someone should block that IP address for making a legal threat. WjBscribe 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked for legal threats to me and User:Rbj. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

On Rbj's page, but the threat was against you and me.[29] — coelacan talk — 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever. He says he's calling his lawyer right now. Can anyone imagine Nkras being laughed off the phone? Apparently, he's suing on the basis that he was "falsely" accused of being a sockpuppeteer. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Lets get this right: The sockpuppets are threatening to take legal action because the sockpuppeteer is being called a sockpuppeteer!?!? WjBscribe 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Often, irony impales the intractable. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, no legal case has ever succeeded (or even gone past the laugh-out-of-court stage) for someone being banned from any website. Private websites can effectively declare that anyone for any reason is not welcome, and certainly nothing you've said here would come anywhere close to defamation or slander. It's just Nkras blowing more wind. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

you guys are a curious bunch. i cannot tell if you want to be taken seriously or are acting as some totally self-absorbed caricature of someone who desparately needs to be taken seriously. Nkras can't hurt you or any of us. i have no idea (other than what i read on my talkpage or on Talk:Marriage) what Nkras has said (or typed) to anyone. all's i know is that there is a widespread over-representation of the LGBT POV on the Marriage article in such a way that no other special interest group i know of enjoys on Wikipedia. the neutral POV that Wikipedia is supposed to offer is simply not happening at Marriage. i am not either pro-LGBT nor anti-LGBT but it's obvious that Marriage is being subjected to a pro-gay litmus test for approval. the article represents an inclusive POV that the pro-same-sex marriage folks would like. but reality in the world is largely not pro-SSM. excluding 6 countries, the world is downright anti-SSM and have clearly expressed that in a variety of manners from nasty executions of gay teens to voter referendums agaisnt SSM. now it may very well be that Nkras is anti-gay or pro-hetero-marriage and he is personally offended by the fact that the Wikipedia article is so blatently skewed (as evidenced by the inclusionary and grossly undue weight given to SSM). i am not personally offended by that per se, but i am offended by any interest group who thinks they can come and define a concept in Wikipedia to one of their liking even though three major dictionaries of the English language do not. it's like if the Christian Right got to define Islam as inclusive of killers, etc. i do not think that Muslims would take kindly to that and if such a page were on my watchlist i would react to that even though i am not anti-Christian.

after Nkras (or whoever the anon IP is, i have no idea) has lost interest and moved on, someone else will come by and be offended by the blatent pro-SSM skew (resulting in ridiculous, tortured and "politically correct" language) in the article.

if you guys start hyping this up to get me banned (for doing nothing but saying what i know to be true on one hand and saying what i believe to be true on the other), then you guys are all fucked up. you just cannot smell that your own shit stinks. you expect the rest of us to like it and we don't. one way or another this will find its way to WP:ArbCom because there is an important principle at stake here. the article will never find peace until the pro-SSM people realize they may not use Wikipedia as a soapbox to advance their political and social goals. r b-j 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the content of the current article, then it's your responsibility to take your concerns up to the relevant talk page and try to establish consensus for your edits. It's not our problem, and it definitely is not of our concern. Nkras was banned for exhausting the community's patience in numerous areas, not for his ideology, contrary to what some may assert. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"all's i know is that there is a widespread over-representation of the LGBT POV on the Marriage article in such a way that no other special interest group i know of enjoys on Wikipedia." Right, because all religious articles on Wikipedia are never dominated by people of that religion. Get real. I mean, you are right, Marriage is subject to a ridiculously politically correct and "inclusive" POV, but the massive irony is that the POV pushers on that page are not in WP:LGBT, they think by putting that stupidly long winded definitions in they are being gay-friendly, even though all of the editors (with the exception of Joie de vivre} from WP:LGBT were against it. But what to do? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ban this troublemaker. Wikipeida is not the place to fix problems you perceive in the outside world. He has consistently failed to understand that. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• I don't know that I've been dealing with this issue long enough to have a strong opinion, but I do feel comfortable certifying that this user has been acting very disruptively, and currently shows no signs of stopping or reconsidering. I tried to be helpful and point out means by which he/she might be able to find help or achieve consensus via discussion with uninvolved (in their mind, I hoped, unbiased) editors, but they seem to be of the opinion that they're a one-person crusader for all sacred truth and justice on the wiki, and that nobody can stop them or get in their way -- that's disruptive, to be sure. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• In my opinion, this proposal has enough support that it's de facto in place. And yes, I absolutely support it. Nkras has no interest in encyclopedia-building, merely in pushing a point of view on a single issue; in fact, he seems to have no problem causing a lot of purposeful disruption in pursuit of that goal, and has never shown an interest in conforming to Wikipedia expectations of his behavior. Mangojuice^talk 01:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Community action review on Ludvikus

Ludvikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user with whom I have no previous experience, was recently blocked for six months for persistent disruptive editing on Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He then issued repeated unblock requests. Upon declining what was at least the third one, I protected his talk page for the duration of his block. In consequence, I received an e-mail which I am reproducing below as an appeal to the community against administrative sanctions.

1. I'm not aware of any rule against a 2nd unblock request concerning a denial.

2. Blocking my Talk page because I made such 2nd request is rather harsh.

3. 6 months is rather harsh.

4. Can you unblock my talk page?

5. I only have a problem with the Philosophy page - why am I not blocked from it only?

Yours truly, Ludvikus

I request a previously uninvolved admin to implement any of the requested relief if there is community consensus to do so. I have no opinion on the original six month block, but it appears to have the consensus of several administrators. As regards no. 1 and 2, I'll just note that the {{unblock denied}} template says: "Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request." – I have mentioned this discussion on Talk:Philosophy. Sandstein 06:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything wrong, Sandstein. For the benefit of others, here, here and here are the discussions surrounding the block. And this is a good explanatory page that includes evidence. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that in the second of those I mentioned that this particular editor's actions, including vague legal threats and mentions of "fisticuffs" (sic), were textbook examples of disruption. To which Ludvikus apparently thought posting my 'join date' was an appropriate response. In short, this editor in essence ducked the banhammer because of the actions of an intervening admin trying a softer approach. That the intervention failed and subsequent actions warranted a long ban is probably not surprising. But after all is said and done that long ban is more than justified, and were I in his shoes I probably wouldn't bring attention to how lightly I 'got off'. Then again, I do not think that Ludvikus accepts or appreciates the notion that some of his previous actions have been disruptive and unacceptable. Bitnine 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Unlock his user page. Sheesh, does this even need to be an issue??

2) Oppose 6 month ban for "disruption". Waaaaaay too long, and this sounds like an ordinary POV battle. The discussions woohookitty links don't have consensus for this (see right near the top -- Jkelly says "an rfc is the way to go"

If he is so awful, follow the dispute resolution process. That's what the process is there for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.91.28.232 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

I've been following Ludvikus pretty much since the day he showed up. I've had enough unpleasant interaction with him that should his case come before ArbCom, I'd recuse. I haven't paid any attention at all to Philosophy, but in pretty much every other venue he's been steadfast in his unique vision: in other words, unable to work cooperatively. It's a pity, too, because he's a font of useful information and research about certain subjects. I'd dearly love to see him educated rather than banned, but I don't know how to do it myself. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, he's the type of user who doesn't listen to others. In that case, I'm not sure he can be educated. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

From my interactions with him at the Velikoe v malom i antikhrist article, I have my doubts as to whether Ludvikus' command of the English language is good enough for him to quite understand some of the comments we're making. Check that article's history to see the horribly broken English that I cleaned up and also view the article's talk page to see the discussions where he seems to be on a completely different frequency than other editors. Has anyone tried to discuss this with him in his native language? —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, the exposure I've had to user Ludvikus at Philosophy is of an editor who not only is incorrigible to correction, but has bragged about his ability to "bruise the egos" of other editors and defeat them by perseverance. His effect on the editing community has been pernicious. Thus, I believe a 6 month ban would not be too "harsh", but an appropriate step. Richiar 18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A protection of the user's talk page is appropriate after abuse of the unblock review template. That protection need not be of the same length as the block; I'd at least consider going back sometime between a week and a month from now(don't advertise when in advance) and removing that protection. Adequate evidence of contrition and understanding of a need to change his ways might lead us to shorten the block at some date in the future. You are at least the second uninvolved admin to endorse the block, so I don't see anything worth doing at the present time. GRBerry 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on User:Shuppiluliuma

I'm proposing a community ban on

• Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka
• DragutBarbarossa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently sockpuppeteering as
• StamboulioteParExcellence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Shuppiluliuma was blocked repeatedly for personal attacks, uncooperative behaviour, edit-warring, bad image uploads, and block evasion. After a previous indef block on the Shuppiluliuma account and an attempt at block-evasion through the DragutBarbarossa account, he came back with an apology and was given a second chance. He was also allowed to shift accounts to the new DragutBarbarossa. Only three days later he had to be warned for NPA again and was finally blocked by a different admin for 3RR; that block was extended two times (4 days, then 2 weeks) for anon-IP block evasion. Today he has been back with a new block-evasion account, StamboulioteParExcellence. He used that account to re-upload and re-insert some of his images and change the license tags on others. While the licensing changes were possibly made in good faith, they still show a blatant failure to understand Wikipedia image policies.

I have now indef-blocked him on all his accounts and propose to turn that into a formal community ban. It is a pity, because Shuppiluliuma is an enthusiastic editor and reasonably knowledgeable in some domains, but his potential for disruption is just too great.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh sweet mercy. After reading over Shuppiluliuma's talk page, I have to support. It's like every section was a complaint by a different editor... Truly delightful. On a side note... Interesting use of multilingual edit summaries. Reminds me of another banned editor. Grandmasterka 11:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a block history. Support community ban. Obviously has burned through enough chances. Durova^Charge! 20:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

endorse ban per talk page history, and misuse of edit summaries and copyrights. - w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 07:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Community Ban Request on User:Classicjupiter2 and associated sockpuppets

Please consider implementing a community ban on user:Classicjupiter2 and his other sockpuppets. Classicjupiter2 (Keith Wigdor) and his sockpuppets have been causing various disruptions within the Surrealism article, such as edit warring, disruption of vote/consensus, violation of 3RR rule, persistent vandalism, sockpuppetry, etc.

The root cause of these vandalistic antics have to do with the user's efforts to add his own personal website link to the article (www.surrealismnow.com), clearly diverging from the NPOV guidelines. Common consensus gleaned from the surrealism talkpage has indicated that Classicjupiter2's link (Keith Wigdor's link) does not belong in the article. Therefore, Classicjupiter2 has been creating sockpuppets in order to attempt to put his link back in the article, as well as to disrupt the article-editing process. This vandalism might very well be nothing more than an online temper-tantrum, but it is severely disrupting the article-editing process, as a result.

A checkuser analysis was done twice, confirming the sockpuppetry, which you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2. More evidence, including DIFFs, can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Classicjupiter2 . At the moment, a page protection request has been made for the Surrealism article in order to deal with this user's sockpuppet vandalism.--TextureSavant 17:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I see three blocks in this editor's history, only two of which are recent and none of which is very long at all. While I have no problem with bans on block-evading sockpuppets, precedent makes banning premature at this point. Has this editor been directed to mentorship? We generally give people a fair chance to learn the hang of things before we show them the door. Durova^Charge! 18:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This editor, Classicjupiter2, has been involved in edit wars, vandalism and other disruptions to the surrealism page for the past 2 years or so. You should take a look at the long list of recent sockpuppets, viewable from a link I posted above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2 . Apparently he knows what he's doing.--TextureSavant 19:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. He has sock puppets, but you haven't provided evidence for any of the other behaviors ("temper tantrum", etc). Use wikipedia's dispute resolution process, it works quite well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.28.232 (talk • contribs)

Accusations require evidence. We don't ban people just because they have sockpuppets - that's all you've proven. Please don't waste time by repeating a link you already provided in the opening post. If you build a logical and well-substantiated case to prove that this editor has disrupted the project for two years, that would be a different matter, but the onus is upon the accuser. See User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc for how I demonstrated an actual instance of long term abuse. Durova^Charge! 20:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The Surrealism article did go through some mediation through the mediation cabal, but the mediator closed the case because of sockpuppet interference. It's difficult to go through DR if one of the parties won't participate in good faith. I don't know if a ban is the answer here, but at the very least the situation seems to warrant closer inspection by an administrator; even at this point Classicjupiter2's latest sockpuppets have been proven through Checkuser, but not blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If the socks are proven and are interfering with things, the socks should be banned and the user given a short term block. If this is serious enough, go to arbcom, but don't come here without any evidence trying to get the editor removed from the project altogether. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.91.28.232 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not referring this editor to more DR - I'm asking them to build a point by point case to back up the allegations. It's very easy to throw around unsubstantiated claims. The challenge is to connect the dots with evidence. If that's done here then there might be an actual case for community banning. But WP:AGF requires us to assume that every editor is reformable until proven otherwise. Durova^Charge! 23:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This personal attack doesn't reflect too well on Classicjupiter2. It's also further disruption of the mediation. It's repeated on a the talk page of User:Plattopus. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Has this user been RfC'd or anything else in regards to the dispute resolution process? Of course, this user has sockpuppets. In regards to them, they should be blocked but there's nothing which says that he has exhasted the community's patience. As in consistent admin action, or a large amount of users complaining. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 07:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment One example of a valid community ban due to sockpuppetry would be that of User:PoolGuy, see his talk page for reasons.--w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 08:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

TextureSavant is seeking assistance from the Association of Members' Advocates; the case is Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/TextureSavant‎. I propose that we close this discussion since further DR is being pursued. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support closure of this discussion. I'd consider a community ban in some future discussion if the serious allegations here get verified through better evidence. Durova^Charge! 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI on apparent new religious schism

It appears to me, based on recent edits, that the Christian denomination The Church of God (Charleston, Tennessee) has split in two, with adherents of both components professing themselves to be the one true "The Church of God" (not to be confused with "Church of God"). This creates problems not only in splitting the article, but also in disambiguating, since there is a tradition of telling the Churches of God apart based on the city where they are headquartered, and both surviving components of TCOG apparently are maintaining international headquarters in Cleveland, Tennessee, which is already the headquarters of Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) (plus a couple of other similarly named churches). If anyone has expertise, interest, and/or experience in dealing with this kind of situation, your oversight is needed... --orlady 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Do they have anything that they use to self-identify themselves uniquely? In other words, if one of them calls me and says, "this is the Church of God" and I ask, "which one", what would they say? --BigDT 05:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

All I know is what I read on websites. I suspect both would answer the phone "The Church of God." The anonymous user who edited the The Church of God (Charleston, Tennessee) a few hours ago (and, among other things, changed the external links from one branch to another) described the link to http://www.thechurchofgod.kk5.org/ as "The Church of God over which James C. Nabors is General Overseer (Cleveland, Tennessee)". (The other branch's website is http://www.thechurchofgod.org/ .)--orlady 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously the ones that control the DNS entry are the "real" Church. The others should have grabbed churchofgod.net if they wanted to have a fighting chance. I know where I'll be tithing this year. — coelacan talk — 09:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we supposed to be checking this page periodically?

Gordon told me about the ban discussion going on here. How would one normally find out about it? Martin | talk • contribs 06:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're under discussion, here, I should hope you'd either know or quickly be informed. :p Unless you were asking whether you need to check this page to have a "full career" as a "proper" Wikipedian -- for that, my answer would be absolutely not. Anybody is welcome to watch and comment, if they're interested, but it is by no means a requirement. It's similar to the village pump, in that regard -- you never even really need to look at it, but sooner or later a lot of the people who stick around awhile get to glance at it now and then. Entirely your call, in my mind; the community has room for contributors in all sorts of areas. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend glancing at this page just like you would AN or AN/I. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are under discussion here and are not informed, I would say that the discussion is invalid. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 16:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

He's actaully referring to the Gordon Watts situation above. The best way would be to add this page to your watchlist.--Isotope23 16:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it necessarily invalidates a discussion, but it sure shows a lack of good-faith if you don't inform someone your having a "community" discussion about them. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User abusing marking edits as minor?

User:Darkson has been making quite a number of major edits, removing text, inserting new text, etc. to many articles while marking his edits as minor. What is the best way to deal with this? Shrumster 21:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The first step would be to raise your concern directly with him. I don't see any comments on his talk page; have you pointed out the issue to him anywhere else? Newyorkbrad 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, then if it's serious abuse and it continues after discussion WP:ANI would be the board where you'd report the problem. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 21:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan related categories

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion
  • #Category:Airlines of Kurdistan and Sub-category Airlines of Iraqi Kurdistan (deleted)
  • #Category:Settlements in Kurdistan (being discussed)
  • #Category:Current governments in Kurdistan (deleted)

I believe the categories fail to meet a set of conventions in a nutshell. Comments? --Cat out 21:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm being dense, but what does, "a set of conventions in a nutshell" mean? —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 02:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As I explained in the linked debate, the current categorization schemes we use on Wikipedia always focuses on political borders. Weather it is a country or a province or some other political sub-division of defined borders. Kurdistan supposed to be a mere geographic region like Europe or Middle East yet we categorize it in a manner parallel to how we categorize countries. See: #Category:Settlements in Kurdistan

Another important convention (WP:NOR, WP:V) is also an issue. This map of Kurdistan has its set of borders, Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters' map of Kurdistan has a different set of borders. The point is there is no agreement on what the borders are supposed to be.

--Cat out 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar

This arbitration case has closed and the decision is available at the link above. WLU (talk · contribs) and Mystar (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with each other or commenting on each other, directly or indirectly, on any Wikipedia page, and may be blocked for up to one week for each violation. For the purpose of this remedy, any edit by either WLU or Mystar to one of the articles over which they had previously been in conflict (including, but not limited to, Terry Goodkind and Lupus Erythematosus) shall be considered an interaction with the other party. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban request on User:GordonWatts

GordonWatts (talk · contribs) is a single-issue account whose single issue is Terri Schiavo. Through his entire time on Wikipedia, he has been vexatious, disruptive, argumentative, and intent on pushing his version of events on any all articles connected to Terri Schiavo. Things had stabilized after he went away about a year ago, but he's back with the same act. His latest is to press beyond all reasonable standards for the inclusion of external links to his personal Geocities/AOL Homepage websites, calling the newspapers on par with the New York Times -- or maybe even better, since he claims to be an authority. Despite universal opposition -- except for the brief resurfacing of an old POV-pushing comrade from the worst of the Terri Schiavo edit wars -- that the links utterly failed external link policies, he persists with disruptive, vexatious, long-winded, barely-connected-to-reality and garishly colored* elaborations. Check out the talk pages for Talk:Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case and Talk:Terri Schiavo and you'll see what I mean.

His cranking out of thousands of words of his self-serving (helping to fill 40-odd pages of archives), garishly colored nonsense -- supported by (almost) no one -- filling up the talk pages is disruptive and distracting. It always has been, it is now, and -- given Gordon's track record of not understanding plain-English explanations to him, his sense of righteousness unencumbered by evidence or outside opinion, and his inability to disengage unless absolutely forced to (and even then merely as a pause before trying a different tactic later on) -- always will be. Enough is enough, and encouraging him is ill-advised. You'll note that even people who are sympathetic to him still get the full-on Gordon Watts loghorrea when contradicting him, which is as disruptive a way of driving off disagreement as I can think of not involving personal threats as I can imagine.

He's been told "no", but still he persists. Enough. He's not going to magically become better, and it's time he was shown the door. --Calton | Talk 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Not a violation, actually, but really really annoying.

As noted here, in a timed display of similar thinking, I support this. For the record, I have never edited any article connected to the Terri Schiavo case and took a look at the incident because Gordon asked for help on the AN/I board. I see no indicators that this user is anything more than a single issue poster who's presence on the page is to ensure that he can engage in self-promotion, his actions are fundementally not "wikipedian" - they are to promote himself rather than build a better encyclopedia. Having said that, if editors felt this was too harsh, I would also support a limited community ban which restricts him from adding his own newspapers freely-hosted websites and editting Terri Schiavo related articles. --Fredrick day 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fredrick day. Gordon is essentially only on Wikipedia to contribute to Terri Schiavo related articles, and his main interest has been adding his own sites to the articles (which are nearly unanimously considered to not meet WP:External links). A restriction from editing Schiavo case articles should be adequate. Leebo⁸⁶ 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As noted here, where I thanked others for participating, I have long stopped editing on the Schiavo articles (or any articles for that matter), and have accepted concensus. The few occasional replies to others' posts is not unreasonable; To ban a user for responding to a post to him sounds vindictive. (If you don't like what is posted and don't want me to reply to you, then simply ignore that page and don't post on it. I am not going to start talking to myself -or, if I do, then we can deal with that when, uh, I mean IF, it happens.) To ban a user who has stopped editing on the articles in question and accepted concensus is not necessary -and sounds like revenge for taking a stand. You're move.--GordonWatts 14:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I Support a community ban. First, as a disclosure because of the political nature of his disputes, I have never edited any of the articles related to Terri Schiavo or any of the related sociological or political issues. The issues with Gordon are long term and extreme enough for a community ban. He has repeatedly attempted to inject his point of view into the articles related to Terri Schiavo, but in a back handed, voluminous, and wikilawyering way. Separate from that, he has repeatedly tried to elevate his own status and stature by extreme self promotion. He has an obsession with the issue and with the dead woman, and one could argue that there are conflict of interest issues as well.

But that is not the crux of the issues with Gordon. He does not understand our Project's policies and guidelines, interprets and bends those he does for his own benefit rather than the benefit of the project or of the community. Nor does he, I believe, have the ability to understand our community norms. I do not believe that his acts are specifically malicious - but the volume and persistence of his acts and ignorance has long ago exhausted the community's patience. And he is annoying to an extreme level.

Multiple times he has said that he is leaving or cutting back his activities, only to not cut back at all or to later return full force.

Gordon has a talent, for sure, but his talents lie in churning out thousands of words on small issues, and repeating himself ad nauseum and in ignorance of those around him. As he is fond of reminding everybody and their cousin, he has his own websites. Wikipedia is not a sounding board for his views and obsessions. Gordon can not be fixed. I know it is extreme, but he needs to go away. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"extreme self promotion...our Project's policies and guidelines..." If you will note, Jeff, this disagreement about my websites is only a minor issue, with many other links being deleted willy-nilly. I'm not the only one to share that concern: If you note in this diff, one of my opponents even admits that "I'm active on other pages, and I'm finding that blogs and personal websites are being ruthlessly removed, with the instruction to find the same information elsewhere, or leave it out." So, you are focusing on someone who had long ago accepted concensus (a waste of time) -and don't focus on the bigger picture, the actual Wikipedia project you mention above, where other editors agree that there is a problem with "personal websites are being ruthlessly removed." As long as people post nonsense to me, I have a right to reply; If you don't want me to reply here in talk, then simply don't post to me; Simple as that. You seem to want to egg on the matter -even though I have not only accepted the concensus but also abided by it; You don't see me adding ANY links, those I support -or those I oppose. As a matter of fact, besides not editing on the article pages, I may not even reply to future posts in this thread, so I may just not edit at all. Then, what are you going to? Ban someone who posts an occasional reply to a talk page? Overkill. Your move.--GordonWatts 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"So, you are focusing on someone who had long ago accepted concensus" What exactly is "long ago" in this statement? It can't have been more than a day or so, because I only stumbled across this issue in the last few days. Leebo⁸⁶ 14:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In wikipedia parlance, a few days is a long time, because of the fast pace here. That I had accepted concensus before your post -and stopped editing on the article page before your post -and stopped even posting to the talk page -except to post in reply -is the salient point -which shows me that you are asking for something after the fact. If the only problem you perceive is me replying to your posts (since I am not editing the article -or threatening to), then the solution is simple: Just don't post to me, and I can't reply! I would, if I were you, do this. I may not even post a reply to this page -be put on notice: I have a real life -but your question seemed a sincere and good one. NOW, arighty: You all are going to have to take care of wikipedia, because you all won the concensus.--GordonWatts 14:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

a long time ago? today is a long time ago? --Fredrick day 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"a long time ago?" First, I want to answer Frederick's question here, as it seems genuine and seeking the truth: When I said that I had not edited in a long time, I was specifically referring to the article pages. (You're going to have ongoing discussion on the talk pages.)

• The last time I edited the Gov't involvement in Terri Schiavo page was here at 12:51, 13 February 2007, where I revered based on this logic: (rv: #1: I did not "add" my link - I partially reverted, and that was the outcome; #2: I am not adding a news source, but rather advocacy; Address why other "blogs" are allowed and I won't revert you..).
• The last time I edited the Public opinion & activism / Terri Schiavo case pg was here back on Feb 09, where I fixed a spacing typo.
• The last time I edited the main Terri Schiavo page was here at 12:05, on 13 February 2007, because (Revert to version 107541828 (11:58, 12 February 2007) because massive deletions of many links were made without having reached proper Concensus or discussion on talk page.)

So, yes, it WAS a long time ago that I edited, a good number of days, and I never came anywhere the "3 revert" rules because I wanted to reach the end-result by consensus -not bullying. Was I wrong to refuse to bully and push here?--17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I support an article ban from subjects related to Terry Schiavo and an outright ban on linking his website, enforced if necessary by blacklisting it. Whether Gordon can be a productive editor elsewhere is unproven, let him prove himself, but there is little doubt that his edits to Schiavo articles have been disruptive and vain, and that cannot continue. he evidently has some capacity or self-delusion so I would like to clarify something: while numerous editors have been kind and patient explaining to Gordon why his actions are problematic, it would not matter where this material is hosted or who added the links, it fails WP:RS by a wide margin. The content itself is the problem, not where it is hosted or who added the links, although they are certainly the problem in terms of user conduct. This is precisely the kind of material we intended to exclude when WP:RS was written. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I support banning him from pages related to Terry Schiavo, and blacklisting the links as promotional. He seems to be wasting people's time and misusing the talk pages to such an extent that it is interfering with the project. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• The applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Being annoying is just that - annoying, but I don't think there's any malice or ill motive in his actions. He just seems very dedicated to asserting that Terri Schiavo was murdered by Democrats and euthanasia is evil. It's not even a matter of admitting when he's wrong, as he will do so, but continue to press the case in a different way, failing to learn anything. I am in a dilemma. I do not want a ban at this point for Gordon, but I worry about what else can be done. I have tried reasoning with him on more than one occasion, and it has a short-term effect at best. A warning to knockit off won't work, as he's had those before, and a ban from editing Schiavo and related articles would be pointless, as he only edits Schiavo and related articles (n.b. - nothing wrong with a narrow focus - many very fine editors only edit one or a few articles). Being annoying and writing long messages on talk pages is his sole crime. He hasn't edit warred (much) over the links, just complained volubly on the talk page about their removal. Annoying: yes, disruptive: a little, but malicious: no. If he had just edit warred, he'd have got a 24 hour block, but because he spoke up (albeit at great length, over and over) he's being community banned? I don't like that. Suggest a self-imposed break, and if Gordon doesn't learn when he returns, then we're looking at a ban. But there's been no warnings about this, and so I cannot support a ban. Proto ► 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• If all of Gordon Watts's claims on yesterday's edit which Frederick day listed above are true, then he is in violation of WP:COI. Corvus cornix 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot support a ban, per Proto. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 20:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not personally familiar with the history here, but if an editor has been around a long time and still not found a way to make himself useful, and if he's causing harm to the project (even somewhat minor harm), simple cost/benefit analysis suggests that we'd be better off without him, right? Since his goals are apparently not compatible with the goals of Wikipedia, the solution seems obvious. Let him do his soapboxing on his own website, it's not useful here. Friday (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a ban, per Proto. I've seen a lot of Gordon on Wikipedia, and while I often wish he would act differently, a lot of people who were irritated by him have behaved disgracefully towards him, and with impunity. I won't bother to search for diffs, as this is not an RfC or an RfArb, but, if people wish to verify any particular incidence, I'm sure I could look them up. This was the second message ever posted on Gordon's talk page (other than by Gordon himself). If that how we are supposed to treat newcomers? Duckecho wrote some rather nasty stuff making fun of Gordon on his own userpage, and then went to the Terri Schiavo talk page to invite editors to come along and look at it. Duckecho also, at one stage, moved all of Gordon's posts on the Terri Schiavo talk page away from where they had been posted down to the bottom of the page with an edit summary "Creating a sandbox for the kids to play in while the adults work on the article", and reverted me twice when I undid it on the grounds that attacking another editor's dignity does not help Wikipedia. On one occasion, when Gordon left a message at Calton's talk page, which Calton may well have found irritating, but which was not a personal attack, Calton deleted it with the edit summary "reverting not-very-bright troll".[30] When Gordon, at the time of his unsuccessful RfA, kept telling everyone that he had never been blocked, Carnildo blocked him for one second, entering as the reason that Gordon kept pointing to his clean block log. Even recently, when Gordon called Calton "Cal" (which I'm sure was not intended to give offence, as lots of editors use abbreviations of names) , and Calton replied with something like "Only my friends get to call me Cal, Gordy-boy." I just see example after example of people taking away the dignity of someone who gets on their nerves.

I believe that the the addition of Gordon's links would be contrary to WP:COI, WP:RS, and WP:EL, regardless of their merit. But he isn't edit warring over it; he's just posting extremely long rebuttals to everyone who disagrees with him. That's hardly something you ban someone for, expecially if you take into account that he has been treated extremely rudely by other users, and has never shown himself to be malicious. If you don't like his long replies, then don't respond. Gordon does not edit war — certainly not more than his opponents. He never vandalizes. He annoys people by telling them (in great detail) why they're wrong and he's right. In response to Friday's post about not having found a way to make himself useful, Gordon has often been very helpful to the article, correcting spelling errors, improving format, taking a photo of Terri Schiavo's grave, so as to reduce the number of Fair Use images. As Proto says, he's not malicious. I very much commend Proto for his efforts at fairness, both here, and in a recent message on Gordon's talk page. I strongly recommend to Calton that before trying things like community bans, he try to place more importance on the dignity of users with whom he disagrees. I strongly disagree with the idea that we don't have to treat other users with respect if we find them disruptive. Calton does valuable work here, and I've often noticed it, but some indication of kindness towards users who annoy him would make his work more valuable. Musical Linguist 00:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose a ban per Proto. Gordon AND Calton could both act better, nothing Gordon has done requires a Community Ban. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 00:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Duckecho wrote some rather nasty stuff making fun of Gordon on his own userpage

Wrong. Duckecho debunked Gordon's long-standing claim-- one he still maintains -- of being a major participant in the legal shenangins surrounding the Terri Schiavo case, Gordon frequently bragging about he "did better than Jeb Bush" and even trying to use that as a wedge in his most recent crusade. It's nasty in the sense that a dash of cold water is nasty.

But he isn't edit warring over it...

Yes he has, as a glance at the edit history would show, just not to the point of hitting the 3RR limit.

...he's just posting extremely long rebuttals to everyone who disagrees with him. That's hardly something you ban someone for...

it is, given its extreme disruption and its intent of wearing down anyone who disagrees with him. It's been done before: User:Herschelkrustofsky, User:Terryeo, User:Everyking, and a few others whose names I can't recall come to mind.

As Proto says, he's not malicious.

Immaterial. He's disruptive and shown himself to be incapable of learning.

when Gordon left a message at Calton's talk page, which Calton may well have found irritating, but which was not a personal attack, Calton deleted it with the edit summary "reverting not-very-bright troll".

Reaching back 16 months for "evidence" is really stretching, don't you think? And the edit summary could have been better phrased but was nonetheless accurate: Gordon WAS trolling, part of a long series of condescending messages peppering my page (some edit summaries: What's the matter, Calton: Can't stand the criticism of fellow-editors? and If you need forgiveness on this or other matters from me, I will grant it.

Funny, though, how your extensive research missed Gordon's attempt at an RFC against me at the same time as the above for "excessive reverting": he left messages on the pages of two editors with whom I'd had disgreements -- including one who'd just been banned by ArbCom, Gordon leaving his message just below the ArbCom notification [31] -- then came immediately to my Talk page claiming that he and four other editors (note the difference in numbers) had gotten together to file an RFC. [32] Note that he hadn't even bothered waiting for any replies before making his claim that "two definitely are" here. The false sincerity of the message text (Please note that I don't act in revenge, but in prevention, the best medicine, an ounce of which is worth a pound of cure -and I'm courteous and polite to give you a heads up, because you deserve a chance to run while you have a chance. I would expect no less from my own honorable adversaries) was particularly choice. Unctuous smarm is no better than active hostility.

Gordon has often been very helpful to the article, correcting spelling errors, improving format, taking a photo of Terri Schiavo's grave, so as to reduce the number of Fair Use images

Gordon is not uniquely or even especially valuable in that context -- a machine can correct spelling errors -- and given his extreme ownership issues surrounding the Terri Schiavo articles, a net drag, given that he requires constant supervision -- which he contests at every turn, sucking up time and energy.

Whether he's a nice guy or an evil, mustache-twirling villian is completely irrelevant as to the issue of whether he's disruptive: "sincere" disruption is no different from "malicious" disruption, no matter how many excuses you make for it. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of the above from User:Calton is particularly helpful or necessary to this discussion. Most of the comments made by "Duckecho" would be considered hearsay and unless said by "Duckecho" here, should be striken from the record. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 01:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a court of law, Mr. Dershowitz. --Calton | Talk 07:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No it's not, but you sure as hell are acting like it is. A court that is run by Calton and Calton alone where Calton should get what he wants, when he wants, and be damned the rules and people he has to run over to get it in the process. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Concur in part, and dissent in part, from Musical Linguist above: I agree that ferocity of Calton's attacks on Gordon Watts are excessive and very snarky for an experienced editor who wants to claim victim status. The two of them seem to have inexhaustible time to go and back and forth since Calton commenced this Wikiwar on 9 February, 2007. Nevertheless, Gordon Watts, the activist, is part of the story of the government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, unless one wishes to fully revise history. Without much effort I found these by narrowing a Google search to .gov [33] and [34] and there is likely more in .com and .org, subtracting out his personal web site. Those petitions have already been memorialized in this Schiavo resource site [35] and should be referenced in our article as well. What Gordon Watts, the Wikipedia editor, appears to lack is the ability to kowtow to Calton as well as some HTML skills. No ban is called for. I agree with all of the others who are calling for a little more self-restraint by the warriors. patsw 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Gordon Watts, the activist, is part of the story of the government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, unless one wishes to fully revise history. Utterly irrelevant spin, but not even wrong: readers are invited to peruse Duckecho's exxhaustive debunking of Gordon's long-standing claim. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouting is not necessary and let Duckecho know that he can come here and comment on this discussion. Please, though, let's keep this discussion on track. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No one is shouting, Duckecho isn't here but the debunking is easily read by anyone, the discussion IS on track, and you should stop with the wikistalking, already. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not Wikistalking, just defending a friend. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 02:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reality varies: you never even heard of the guy until you enlisted his help this week. --Calton | Talk 07:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, cause he was being harrassed by you. I just gave him a simple RfC link which preceded the request for this community ban. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose.Per Musical Linguist and Proto.Giovanni33 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• I Oppose a community ban. I read through Talk:Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case and I think Gordon has exhausted Calton's patience, but I don't think he has yet exhausted the community's patience. I agree that Gordon is very trying, annoying and he seems to have a very warped sense of self-importance. However, I don't see anything that I feel justifies a community ban. He has only been blocked twice: once on 19 September 2005 for one second for "pointing to his clean block log as a reason why he should be made an admin". The second block was for 12 hours on 02:16, 25 September 2005 for "violation of agreement at Talk:Terri Schiavo". In the last 17 months, Gordon has not been blocked at all. before supporting a community ban, I would rather see more blocks of increasing lengths used where necessary. A community ban should be a last resort. Gordon has a clear conflict of interest with regard to all the Schiavo articles and his links are clearly inapprorpriate, but he has agreed not to edit the Schiavo articles further.

Also, Calton needs to stop being antagonistic, provocative, bullying and rude towards Gordon. I don't know if there's some ruling (from anyone other than Calton) that says that Gordon is not allowed to comment on the relevant article's talk pages, but if there is, I couldn't find it. All I could find was Calton repeatedly declaring that "Gordon is not free to rebut" matters discussed on the article's talk page. This is bullying. Gordon has already agreed not to edit the articles, if Calton wants him also restricted from responding on the talk page, he needs to get an appropriate injunction, rather than declaring it as a personal decree. Gordon's behaviour is disruptive and annoying, but I think a community ban at the present time is premature. Sarah 07:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Gordon has already agreed not to edit the articles" Well, let me clarify: I promised that I had not edited the main article pages for a good while, several days; I was making a promise about the past, not the future; also, please see my reply to Frederick above, where I made another promise about the past (it's easier to promise about the past, since it can't be changed) -I gave my word and promised I came nowhere near the 3-revert rule. I do not recall promising to not ever edit on the Schiavo pages; In fact, many people stick to their area of expertise, and while I edit a little everywhere, I am expert in only a few issues. I did strongly imply (if not promise) to not edit for a short while to give the issue time to cool off- and I also strongly implied (if not promised) to try accept consensus and not irritate or edit war with my global neighbours -and to be more flexible. Indeed, I may be guilty to being too talkative, and we all get ticked at times, but if I am guilty of spending lots of talk page space over something (hopefully to educate and seek consensus), then Calton is also guilty of the same thing: He posts long, irritating posts. Indeed, even as we speak, as pointed out by OrangeMonster, Calton has an RfC against him: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Calton -and lots of people agree Calton has need for improvement. Not only is his behaviour bad, but also, his editing style is bad; He cuts too many things out of Wikipedia, so we can't cite our sources, and this will be a problem whether or not I regularly edit here. I already cited that even one editor, who disagreed with me on my page being used as a reference, concedes that I'm active on other pages, and I'm finding that blogs and personal websites are being ruthlessly removed, with the instruction to find the same information elsewhere, or leave it out. OK, while no one seems to agree that my newspaper should be a references, I'll AGREE with you that it may not be totally reliable (and by extension, so also, some smaller papers and blogs). BUT, these smaller news sources ARE partly reliable -hey! We don't all just write lies all the time, but that's what is implied by "not reliable." I'll offer a compromise here: Why don't we consider revising our application of the policy to allow for these smaller papers to be included -so long as they have supporting sources, that is, instead of citing just to, say, my paper, we can cite to 2 or 3 smaller blogs; In fact, even when using the NY Times as a source, we ought to have a "supporting" source, just to make sure we cite our sources.--GordonWatts 17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, you're not helping yourself at all. Making promises about the past is ridiculous. You have a conflict of interest and should not be editing any of those pages. Your links are completely unacceptable for the articles. You either need to accept these things or you're going to have to accept a community ban. Sarah 17:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have accepted the consensus and not threatened to violate it; however, what if this editor is right in her claims that we are not citing our sources? Also, I am not advocating specifically for "my" pages. That my pages are one of many that are arbitrarily excluded no less makes my point a valid one; So, please understand that I am NOT seeking to promote my websites, but if smaller news papers ARE indeed partly reliable but arbitrarily excluded, then I am right to speak up on that general issue, and those would bring up "my" newspapers are conflating (confusing) the point and side-stepping the issue. Indeed, if all I'm guilty of is advocating a change in policy (note that I've accepted the consensus on the issue of links to my page), then this is not a crime; it is something all should do: Advocate for change where change is necessary. You are confusing my advocacy of my links with my advocacy of the bigger issues of our policy. I am doing the latter, not the former--GordonWatts 18:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Gordon may have misunderstood something I said. He links to this post, and asks if I may be right in my claims that we are not citing our sources. I certainly never intended to make such a claim. I said, "I'm active on other pages, and I'm finding that blogs and personal websites are being ruthlessly removed, with the instruction to find the same information elsewhere, or leave it out. After you recover from your surprise, it actually seems a good idea." I was referring to the Gillian McKeith article, where a lot of criticism of McKeith was placed in the article, with references that linked to a blog. Some administrators have explained that we can't use that material, unless the criticism is found in a better source. The idea was not that we'd use it, and not cite our sources (which is what Gordon seems to think I meant), but that we shouldn't use it at all, unless it's in a reliable source. If the information is notable and newsworthy, it will presumably be found in The Times, or a similar source. I was actually saying to Gordon that the policy seems very strict, but that once you get used to it, it makes sense. ElinorD (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your intent; It was not my intent to mischaracterize or misquote you; If what you say is true (and I'm sure it is), then the situation is even worse then my initial estimation: Even if we don't cite our sources but at least leave in the material, we can come back to it; By deleting sections of encyclopaedic entries for which only "non-notable" sources exist, we slice the Encyclopaedia in pieces, since, after all, we can either get several "non-notable" sources -or make a note that the sources are in question; That way we don't miss a beat -and preserve the record of history. MANY times an act or action will be witnessed or reported on only by a "non-notable" source, such as the time I was the only news reporter in one oral argument for George Felos, when he came before the court a block from my home in Lakeland. Yet that even really occurred and should be reported -as it happened -and if there are concerns about the source, then call the Schindlers; They can confirm whether or not the "non-notable" news report was true or not, and this will be your check-and-balance.--GordonWatts 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if I am right that our policy needs to be changed, then my advocacy of this is NOT a conflict of interest issue: I am not specifically advocating in this issue for inclusion of my links; That I did the latter in the past does not somehow negate this larger issue. I certainly don't seek a ban against Calton in his RfC, but he has violated actual and real rules, and is guilty of not only rudeness but also (if I am right about how we don't cite our sources) he would be guilty of cutting up articles and bad editing, even if he were polite. Even though I've commented that his behaviour is inappropriate and needs to be dealt with, I'm not seeking his ban, but if you seek a ban, he would be more worthy of one than would I. Did you see his RfC? One more thing: Saying that a person can't edit on a page where he has expert or first-hand knowledge because of a conflict of interest would effectively stop all doctors from editing medical articles and stop all biologists from editing biology articles, and we'd lost a lot of our expertise; Is that what you want?--GordonWatts 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, if you wish to discuss the validity of using certain links or lobby for policy change, you need to do that in the appropriate forum. Advocating for it and offering it as compromise in the middle of discussion of a proposal to ban you is not the right place.

Correct. I got side-tracked -and slightly over-reacted; Sorry! I shall correct that - via strikeout.--GordonWatts 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You editing the Terri Schiavo articles is a completely different situation to, say, a doctor editing the heart article and I'm actually quite surprised that you don't get that. I know you self-proclaim yourself a Terri Schiavo expert and you've tried to claim "special standing" and "recognized authority" status on those articles.[36] I do not accept that claim and I don't believe the majority of editors would either. I don't know if you are an expert or even how that would measured and quantified, and I don't think it even matters. But what I do know is you have a clear conflict of interest and you should not be editing these articles. I think if you could put your belief about your status and significance in the case aside when you're on this website, and follow WP:COI and WP:RS, many of your problems would be resolved. I don't have a problem with you suggesting changes on the talk pages or discussing article content there, but you should not directly edit these articles or add links to your site to any article. Sarah 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of the adverb "repeatedly" is false or at least wildly misleading and the context misrepresented: this was in response to his continuing to flog the dead horse of inserting his personal external links after continually being told that they weren't going in, period. I told him that if he continued, I'd request the ban. He continued, I requested.

if Calton wants him also restricted from responding on the talk page, he needs to get an appropriate injunction You're looking at that request: what else did you think this whole thread was about? Instead, we get people (who frankly ought to know better) enabling his dysfunctional behavior and feeding his overweening sense of self-worth instead, and at least annoying wikistalker hopping on the bandwagon hoping to recruit supporters.

My user page says at the top "It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical." Gordon is all three, in spades, and whatever limited value he has -- other than a single-minded devotion to one subject (or, more precisely, one single view of a single subject) -- is far outweighed by his negatives. This place is not reform school or personal therapy, it's an encyclopedia, and I can't imagine what possible benefit there is in attempting a salvage job on someone who refuses to be salvaged. Between his previous and current antics at Terri Schiavo, at attempting to bully his way into making it a feature article, and his world-class wikilawyering at his spectacularly unsuccessful adminship bid (including an attempt at an end run by appealing to Jimbo to just give him the job, votes be damned), I'm trying to imagine HOW anyone thinks he's going to suddenly turn into a good contributor. --Calton | Talk 07:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of the adverb "repeatedly" is false or at least wildly misleading and the context misrepresented. I looked quickly at Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Enough and I see at least three times you insisted that Gordon was not free to rebut:

• "No more arguments, no more rationalizations, no more long-winded, disruptive, self-serving rebuttals..." --Calton | Talk 14:49, 15 February 2007
• "Gordon's free to rebut. No, he's not..." .-Calton | Talk 22:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• "Gordon is free to rebut. No, he isn't: hundreds and thousands of words of his self-serving nonsense..." -Calton | Talk 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

While the first one was just your opening warning to Gordon that you would request a community ban if he continued with that behaviour, the other two were replies to User:Leebo86 and User:Hipocrite who disagreed with your edict. At least three is more than once and therefore "repeated". I don't think that is false or "wildly misleading."

You're looking at that request: what else did you think this whole thread was about? That's exactly my point, Calton: you declared editing restrictions before you even brought it to the community.

Instead, we get people (who frankly ought to know better) enabling his dysfunctional behavior and feeding his overweening sense of self-worth instead, and at least annoying wikistalker hopping on the bandwagon hoping to recruit supporters. I don't know who the stalker is or whether that is a general comment or if it's directed specifically at me, but what you've actually got is several people responding to your request and telling you that they don't think a community ban is appropriate yet. I'd be willing to support a community ban if other editors cut antagonising him AND there was a recent record of blocks. Is his behaviour disruptive enough to warrant a block? If it is, have him blocked a few times and see if that has any impact. If it isn't disruptive enough to warrant a block, how on earth can it warrant a ban? I don't think this is unreasonable, nor do I think that telling you your attitude and behaviour is unhelpful and Gordon that his attitude and behaviour is "very trying, annoying..." and "disruptive" and warning him that he is headed for a community ban is "enabling his dysfunctional behavior and feeding his overweening sense of self-worth." Also, I thought you posting on Talk:Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case the link to that blog that ridiculed Gordon was pretty damn nasty. Sarah 12:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Sarah has supported me and seems to be taking a responsible attitude towards being fair, it has bothered me that there was a small difference of opinion -in which she commented that I should not edit the Terri Schiavo articles. Yes, I agree that I have some conflict of interest here, but it has just now dawned on me: I think she may feel my motives on this article were less than pure. (And if she doubts my motives, I'm sure that my detractors would doubt them even more.) So, I feel a obligation to clarify one big thing: In the many edits I've made, I DO have a hidden agenda: To better Wikipedia -and to have fun and make friends in the process; Proof of that claim is the fact that I often make sure opposing views and opposing links (that is, views with which I disagree) are presented. I even recently added Michael Schiavo's website to the main Terri Schiavo article, even though I was against him in my recent court case! To prove that my detractors are wrong, please note that here at 04:41am, way back on 18 January 2007, I added a link to Michael Schiavo's site to the main article. I don't want to argue much for myself, even as 10 of Trades suggested, but this one link is proof I'm not biased or in possession of a bad agenda. However, if MY website is helpful as a source (in one case, I was the only reporter present in an important oral argument hearing), then my pushing of my website is not per se pushing my own agenda: Most websites I support for inclusion are NOT my own -even those which are not pro-life like me. OK, now that I've got this off my chest, I apologise for the length of this page, but so many questions and accusations require some rebuttals hither and yon.--GordonWatts 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is ONE take home message I hope none of us miss: We are unpaid editors, and while it is good that we expect a lot out of the articles, when unpaid persons are asked to sit in judgment of a peer, the quality of the inquest suffers, and instead of getting frustrated or blaming yourselves, please understand that you can't be expected to be a professional judge when you're not paid enough to do the job right. So, in conclusion, we must STRIVE for the stars -but we MUST NOT expect too much -lest we be disappointed; Be humble in your expectations, and you won't get disappointed; I hope this has encouraged my fellow-editors, for that was the hope.--GordonWatts 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Sarah has supported me... Gordon, I just need to clarify something: I think your behaviour is extremely problematic and I think that if you continue as you have in the past, you are heading for a community ban. There is a difference between thinking that you haven't entirely "exhausted the community's patience" yet and actually supporting you. I don't think you should be banned at the present time because I think we should exhaust other options such as blocking, restrictions etc, but I do not support you carrying on as you have been. Sarah 12:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban request on User:GordonWatts (section break 1)

Why are people talking about how other editors have been rude to him? It looks like it's true, certainly, but it's utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. The big concern I see here is the conflict of interest. Any editor who's goals do not coincide with the goals of the project must either change their ways, or be shown the door. However it looks to me like an rfc might be a better place to hash this out- it seems we've no shortage of people with opinions on this topic. Friday (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The behaviour of all the parties to a conflict is often relevant when we seek to evaluate the behaviour of a particular editor. Context is important. Some editors – I have in mind particularly Calton, and this is by no means the only conflict where his own attitude is a problem – check the requirements of WP:CIVIL at the door as soon as they believe they're dealing with someone who is a waste of their time. While that assessment may in some cases be correct, the rudeness often fans flames and spreads conflict. Gratuitous rudeness doesn't help Wikipedia, except for the very rare case where a timewasting editor can be bullied into silence and departure. (Even then, this is often not the best possible outcome.)

That said, GordonWatts has been a single-issue editor since his arrival here. His continued debating here and elsewhere does seem to indicate that he has trouble with letting go of arguments. I can understand the frustration with trying to deal with an editor who is certain that we'll all come around to his point of view if he just explains it one more time.

GordonWatts' RfA a year ago was not a pretty thing, and I fear that he has not sufficiently internalized Wikipedia's practices and culture since then. Nevertheless, an RfC might be a good idea to identify the scope and nature of the problems here. I note that his block log has been clean for more than a year, although he did take a couple of very long breaks during that time. If the problems are simply related to his conflict of interest in evaluating his own blog as a reliable source, I can't in good conscience support a flat ban. As Proto says above, it appears "Being annoying and writing long messages on talk pages is his sole crime. He hasn't edit warred (much) over the links, just complained volubly on the talk page about their removal." Incidentally, aside from the links issue, does anyone have a comment on the quality of his writing? Is he improving the articles that he works on? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the evaluation; it may be the most correct yet. I'll answer your last question about my edits: I don't edit very often, sometimes taking long Wikipedia:Wikibreaks, but when I do edit (over the long run), the edit history of the articles I sometimes edit show usually very GOOD edits, both in regards to finding typos AND in regards to making sustentative changes. However, your opinion may differ. What I will tell you is this: When I make edits, I usually DON'T get his type of negative attention, which would imply that I am a good editor, that is, mixing common sense editing and good manners. (Either one or the other won't work: You can't be a stupid but polite editor. You also can't be a good but rude editor and do well. Check the edit history of the few pages I've edited recently -or check MY edit history -if you want to see.--GordonWatts 19:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Of what I have read, and I will be the first to admit that I am no expert on the Schiavo subject only what I seen on CNN. But, of what I have read of Gordon's writing, his writing appears to be VERY well written and explains things at detail. Much better than anything I can write. My personal opinion is that is does improve the articles that he works on. Writing as articulate as Gordon's is something I would like to see more of here. Again, this is just my opinion on the quality of his writing per TenOfAllTrades (I ain't getting in the debate outside that). - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 19:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll add a few diffs to supstantiate Orange Monster's claim here -and help him out:

First, look at the last 500 edits of the Terri Schiavo page here, by far, more contentious and difficult than the Gov't Involvement page. Most of my edits seem to be accepted by the community. I rest my case -and await an answer to my question to Sarah where she says as person can't edit at all on pages where conflict of interest would apply. The Conflict of interest only applies to edits which promote the person -not just any old edit.--GordonWatts 19:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding Nancy Cruzan link a sustentitive edit; revert a typo wikilinking some dates we missed earlier (minor grammar/clarification edits: add ... + date + wikilink of date + time span of institutionalization + clarify *which* court was petitioned by Michael + grammar of "upholding" lower court decision) m (→State involvement: Terri's Law - balance: I concur and agree with Calton that ACLJ is explicitly conservative, but as a nod to Johnlu 78759, I add this to remove bias by an inclusionist method.) PS: That edit was later reverted, and I didn't edit-war over it, but my edit here looked good, so I did it.--GordonWatts 19:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, I'm really looking for third party evaluation of the quality of your edits. This thread exemplifies part of what other people have found – for lack of a better word – 'annoying' about your participation on talk pages. You really, really, really need to learn when it's best to stand aside, and that it isn't necessary to have your finger in every pie or your signature on the last word of every discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that I should not have HAD to reply to your question AT ALL, because the other editors should be able to look into the edit history all by themselves -but we both know that not all people can find the article edits you sought -since not all would look in the right places. That said, I've done my part; If you all want answers to these matters, you will have to seek them out; Other than answer a passing question, I have no more to add: This is a big waste of time to argue over this matter -for all parties. I have a real life, and so do you all: Don't let these things stress you all too much! Live life and have fun.--GordonWatts 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; A 3rd-party evaluation is more objective, but I think it's only fair to help out a little bit. One last comment: While this page is long, and partly due to my crimes of being too talkative, much of the long-windedness is that of other people. I hope we all can learn to argue less over trivial points; Life is too short, and THAT is the bigger picture -no matter my or others' situation.--GordonWatts 19:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, you're not taking the hint. Let someone else get a word in edgewise in this discussion. You're not helping yourself or anyone else. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK; as you ask. Acknowledged and done.--GordonWatts 19:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously a problematic situation. I don't think a permanent community ban is right, but I would support a one-year ban from articles and talk pages relating to Terri Schiavo. One year seems like a good amount of time to me, because Gordon takes long breaks but then returns with problematic behavior, but never THAT much time, and I'm with Sarah that I don't think the community's patience is totally exhausted by now. I would make the ban extend to talk pages because that is where his behavior has been a problem for other people. Mangojuice^talk 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

GordonWatts is pretty much a single-issue editor, though. If we bar him from editing on Schiavo-related topics, there's not going to be anything left of his contributions—what you suggest amounts to the same thing as banning him outright for a year. If that's on the table and we want to discuss it, that's fine—but we shouldn't kid ourselves with 'oh, it's just an article ban'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article-ban pretty much encompasses all of Gordon's activity. However, it's not the same thing as banning him outright, because this does give him the opportunity to attempt to make himself useful somewhere in the project. If he doesn't feel like taking that opportunity, no big deal. But if he is going to reform, he must stop being a single-issue editor, and this would encourage that. Mangojuice^talk 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would support an article-ban, as MangoJuice above said, it would allow Gordon to edit/add to other articles and not completely outright ban him, which I don't think is necessary. I think Gordon would do much good here on other articles. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the quickest way to make this wikidrama go away is to blacklist his freehosted pages? Then either he's get on with editting or if he's entirely special purpose (in regards to get his own pages added) then he will be unable to fulfil that purpose and leave? The proof will be in the pudding, no? --Fredrick day 17:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That solves – rather finally – the issue of the external links, but the impressive I've gotten from the lengthy discussion above is that there wasn't really much edit warring over them to begin with. The chief problem was the interminable argument on that and other topics which followed. (Another clear example of that problem appears in the section above, where Gordon misses completely repeated hints that it isn't necessary to be the last poster in every discussion thread.) I fear that if we blacklist the links, we'll just be back to argument (here, on WP:AN, and on various talk pages) about why the links need to be unblacklisted again.

What we need is cloture: some way to throttle Gordon's back-and-forth. I'm not sure what the best remedy would be, but I'd be willing to support something like an editing cap. Allow two or three edits per talk page per day, totalling no more than six hundred words. (I'm pulling numbers out of thin air here.) Maybe offer an exemption where he is specifically asked to comment. If nothing else, it will (hopefully) force him to pick his battles and reduce the amount of text that other editors have to wade through. Incidentally, I'm still interested in comment on the thread above—I really do want to know what others think of the quality of Gordon's writing. Thoughts? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What is happening below here indicates to me, at least, that we're going to need some sort of, as Ten says, throttle. At this point, I'm now willing to support some kind of editing restrictions. His need to respond to everything and argue every little point is obviously not conducive to collaborative editing. I won't support a community ban, but I'm willing to support editing restrictions. Sarah 15:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this thread is a misplaced effort at a user conduct RFC. GordonWatts does not fit the end phase profile described at the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing model for community response to disruption. As Sarah Ewart articulates, he is headed along that path and may get to the point of community banning. Some other editors have raised the question of whether lesser community sanctions could be appropriate such as revert parole or topic banning. Those are interesting ideas. I would want to see a more serious block history than one single second block and one twelve hour block (both several months ago) before I get behind any community action proposal. Durova^Charge! 00:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

GORDON'S OBSERVATION:

Can I make an observation? As you can see in Kate's Replacement and Essjay's Tool, I have * 4194 TOTAL EDITS, with only 1268 of them in talk -in approximately 569 to 575 main space webpages (depending on which edit counter you use), -and only 187 talk pages (apparently, I edit more and talk less -as long as no one pokes fun or harasses me!) ...and in ALL that time -and in all those edits on all those pages (many, many pages besides Terri Schiavo pages, mind you -I'm not as "single-purposed as some claim -not that this is bad), I have NEVER gotten any serious discipline for anything -so, obviously, I am a good editor -period!

Thus, it pain me that editors who

1. 1: Don't know me
2. 2: Never met me -and
3. 3: Don't know anything about me (except that I briefly reverted Calton, with the unintended result being that it add my link back in -not the same thing as adding it myself, mind you)

• • All these editors who DON'T know me (that don't know that 99.5% or more of my edits have NOTHING to do with my own webpages) all of a sudden think they know everythnig about me -and can make sweeping generalizations.

Note, if you would, that people who actually know me with almost no exception, have positive views about me.

So, if MOST of my edits have had NOTHING to do with adding my own links or pages -and since I -by and large -don't have problems (even though I have edited a lot -long breaks not diminishing the THOUSANDS of edits on HUNDREDS of pages), then, obviously I am not a "self-serving" editor. You can impose any or all bans, but if you do, you will set bad precedent: Namely, you will exemplify the nature of a wiki: People rashly jumping to rash conclusions with little or no data.

Unpaid editors -like ourselves CAN NOT be expected to gather facts as professionally as, say, paid appeals judges, OK? I'm not blaming some editors for being unpaid, but I AM blaming them for thinking they can do an equal job as a paid judge.

Since the dispute in question was winding down, and I had accepted the consensus about the links in question, and was moving on, this matter was basically over -and things were running smoothly -like they usually do with me. But, Calton, an editor with a history of trouble (see his current RfC for evidence of that) decided to sling mud, and if he slings mud, I will respond to the allegations.

So, a bad editor slung mud at a good editor, and other editors who don't know my generally good track record improperly followed him, and now we have pages and pages of words -now, whose fault is this? ANY ONE OF YOU, had you been improperly accused of being a trouble maker would have responded as me.

Yes, I've made a few errors in judgment, but we move on; This spectacle here is overkill, a waste of everybody's time, and proof that an editor with many, many good edits can be improperly accused -due to the fact that unpaid editors sitting in judgment can overlook many, many facts and look narrowly at a small, small selection of edits and just jump like frogs to a conclusion. Is this how we want to act?

If you blame me for something, you must blame my accuser, Calton, even more, since his track record is one of trouble: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Calton. I'm not asking for any punishment of Calton -at all -only pointing out his track record is far spottier than mine. Remember: I sought to talk out the problem -and avoid an edit war -not even getting close to the 3-revert rule; I am polite and patient.--GordonWatts 05:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

CONCLUSION: Based on the foregoing, any decision to prohibit edits on one type of page or the other would be like prohibiting a doctor for doing medical -or prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law. (Earlier, Sarah rejected this comparison and suggested I had a COI re Schiavo pages. No; I have a bias -I am pro-life. MANY editors are either pro-life or pro-choice, and have a bias, but that doesn't stop them from editing; The only time I would have a COI on the Terri pages would be if I edited about MYSELF (like if I were one of the members of the family in the article -or if I put in one of my links or something). No COI here -merely the mundane, everyday "bias" we ALL have.) I admit that I edit more on the Schiavo pages than other pages (I AM NOT a single-issue editor though, and proof of that is the fact that I have edited on HUNDREDS of articles) -but there is nothing wrong with single-issue specialists. I mean, really, do you want to go to a doctor when he is not a specialist, but is forced to practice law, play golf, and repair computers? No! Specialists are not bad! I think that prohibiting my pages from being linked will settle the argument; If I am bad, I will go away; If I am good, I will be forced to work within the constraints of using "non-Gordon" pages -it will find me out: "The proof will be in the pudding, no?" this editor says, and I agree with him.--GordonWatts 05:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, it's this kind of stuff that everyone is talking about. You just dropped a whole page of text that reiterates everything you've been saying already, and is so longwinded that no one can properly respond to every point you bring up. Didn't you say you were going to sit by and observe for a while? Leebo⁸⁶ 05:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Didn't you say you were going to sit by and observe for a while?" I sat by for like a day -and will probably sit by and wait for a good day or two after this edit before even thinking about responding. "a whole page of text that reiterates..." Not re-iterated at all: I brought up a novel (new) point: The fact that I have edited for MANY THOUSANDS of edits on many HUNDREDS of pages -usually without incident; This specific fact was not mentioned prior -and needed highlighting. Also not mentioned before was the fact that the original dispute was winding down until a bad editor slung mud had not been pointed out either. PLUS, I mentioned other facts which were not elucidated (not "iterated" before, thus could not be "re-iterated" at all by me!) -such as the distinction between COI and bias -a significant distinction -and the distinction between myself and Calton's records -and a support of a proposed solution suggested by Frederick -and proof I am not a single issue editor -and proof that even if I were, it is not all bad. ALL these points (with the possible exception of the last) were novel, and the last point needed clarification. "You just dropped a whole page" Dude! It's only one page; Chill out, and relax; It will all be ok... I have nothing more to add -except please read what I already wrote -before responding, OK? It's only 1-page. I have no further comment -unless someone has a question or complaint.--GordonWatts 06:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban, but Support a temporary ban on Schiavo-related articles. It's possible that he'd be less disruptive if he edited on a different subject, and I don't think it'd cost us anything to find out. He plainly shouldn't be editing Schiavo pages, though, since he considers himself (rightly or wrongly) to be part of the situation, and the changes he wants to insert aren't the non-controversial sort permitted under WP:AUTO. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Some numbers

The fact that I have edited for MANY THOUSANDS of edits on many HUNDREDS of pages -usually without incident

The statistics are technically true but -- as usual with Gordon -- misleading. Welcome to the mind of Gordon Watts. You were warned.

So let's break down those numbers, using the "Wannabe-Kate's Tool" [37]

Total edits: 4210: Avg edits per article: 12.38

• Mainspace edits: 575 (13.7% of all edits)

• Terri Schiavo: 418
• Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case: 21
• Other Terri Schiavo-related pages: 45

• Total Terri Schiavo related edits: 484 (84.2% of category)

• Talk Page edits: 1266 (30.1% of all edits)

• Talk:Terri Schiavo: 830
• Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation: 150
• Talk:Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case: 141
• Other Terri Schiavo-related Talk pages: 24

• Total Terri Schiavo-related Talk page edits: 1145 (90.4% of category)

• Wikipedia space: 562 (13.3% of all edits)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive1: 107
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive2: 61
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive3: 57
• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates: 57

• Total Terri Schiavo-FAC page edits: 282 (50.2% of category)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts: 78
• Wikipedia Talk:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts: 29

• Total Adminship request edits: 107 (19.0% of category)

• User talk page edits: 1412 (33.5% of all edits)
• User page edits: 134 (3.2% of all edits)

• And the money shot: Everything else (other articles, Category, Template, Image, etc): 472 (11.2% of all edits)

If anyone can explain how and when the magic transformation of Gordon Watts will take place -- so far, no evidence, especially on this page -- I'd be grateful. --Calton | Talk 06:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You are guilty of that which your friends are accusing me (being too talkative). I'm not seeking any punishment for this. (You have a right to talk) -but if I am talkative, you are very long-winded and non-stop (plus you have RfC problems that I don't have). In all areas of trouble, you excel me. Maybe we should have a Request for Ban page for you instead? Just a thought. OK, all I seek is a review of the facts -thank you for your input here; Very interesting.--GordonWatts 06:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton, are you trying to say that just because that is the only section on Wiki Gordon has edited/added to that he wouldn't be helpful in other sections? Gordon has not edited or added to a Terri Schiavo related page since February 16th, the day you submitted the community ban request. It has been suggested that a year-long ban from any Terri Schiavo related page be imposed, I would like to hear your opinion on that.

I think, given the chance, Gordon would be helpful on other sections of Wiki, regardless of your numbers. If we went by your numbers logic, I wouldn't be useful to Wiki if banned from radio and TV pages (the majority of my edit/adds). So, again, exactly what are you trying to say with these numbers?

Also, I would like a vote taken on the "one-year ban from articles and talk pages relating to Terri Schiavo" proposed by User:Mangojuice and User:GordonWatts a chance to prove himself elsewhere on Wikipedia to show that he is not just a one-subject editor. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 07:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Also, I would like a vote taken on the..." I'm not saying you are wrong here, but please note, SVRTVDude, that -at the top of the page -we see this quote regarding policy on voting: "While comments from all editors are welcome, please note that "voting" won't be taking place, including on proposed community bans. Ejecting an editor from the community does not rest solely on simple majorities, or even supermajorities." "a chance to prove himself elsewhere on Wikipedia" PS: Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't feel I need to prove myself any more; After thousands of edits, I've already proven myself -and I'm all worn out, and I need to just limp by at my own slow pace for editing, OK? I'm an old dude at 40 years of age!--GordonWatts 07:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the no voting taking place line...thanks:) I am guilty of skimming through things I read sometimes, this is one of those cases. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 07:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. No harm done. OK, I'm an old fogey, and I don't much like all this editing; it's a wearing me out; Y'all figure this out. If the need arises, I might answer a stray question, but I hope not to. If anyone wants to make a suggestion, all I say is that personal responsibility lies with you to read the page (not that long, really) -and if you don't like the page, simply walk away and take care of more pressing issues. Have a nice day.--GordonWatts 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon: PLEASE STOP. Stop commenting and replying to eveything. Seriously, you are only damaging your own case by replying to and arguing every point. Sarah 14:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What? There is nothing wrong with replying to comments here. If people are allowed to make complaints about Gordon's behaviour in a public place in this way then he should be allowed to defend himself. Banning people from responding to accusations made against them is just unfair. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 02:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are guilty of that which your friends are accusing me (being too talkative). False, but you just keep thinking there, Butch, it's what you're good at.

Calton, are you trying to say that just because that is the only section on Wiki Gordon has edited/added to that he wouldn't be helpful in other sections? Yep. Multiple chances, multiple requests, multiple suggestions, same M.O. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Butch, it's what you're good at."....I think we all know what you were trying to say in that first word and that's not even close to appropriate. Cussing (or "faux" cussing like above) is not necessary. Thank you. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 16:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You would be, as usual, wrong, especially your use of "we": [38]. --Calton | Talk 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would support a ban next time around, or even a temporary ban this time. I've had some experience dealing with Gordon Watts, and all of it has been extremely frustrating. In addition, I have yet to see a case where he has been easy to work with. As evidenced plenty on this page, he is difficult to discuss matters with, is illogical, and just seems to miss the point — it doesn't appear that he understands the problem. Although he seems very well intentioned, the amount of frustration created through dealing with Gordon seems to outweigh his contributions and good intentions. It seems to me that every effort to remedy the problem has been made. While I don't really want to ban him, something's got to give. Thus, I feel that maybe a ban is certainly coming if he keeps it up. Honestly, though, given his reactions on this page, I doubt that anything will change. I'm willing to give it a last shot, though. Kyle Barbour 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban request on User:GordonWatts (section break 2)

This section with subsections is getting so long, that I'm not going to attempt to reply in the correct places. The dispute seems to have started with this uncivil edit summary from Calton. The material Calton was removing was in the article when I joined Wikipedia in April 2005 (before Gordon). The actual link (to a site that Calton objected to, but not Gordon's personal website) was added by Zenger, not by Gordon,[39] although Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger.[40]

Anyway, the link was added on 3 January. A month later, an anon (very likely banned user Amorrow) made massive changes to the article. Gordon reverted the changes on the grounds that they had not been discussed. Reverting the changes meant reinserting the link. Note that he did not sneakily add in a link while reverting unrelated changes: the version that he reverted to, from before the massive anon changes, had that link. Nevertheless, Calton removed the link (quite appropriately) with the extremely inappropriate and inaccurate edit summary "Remove Gordon's umpteenth attempt to sneak in the same unreliable source under cover of a series of edits."[41] Gordon seems to have been hurt and indignant. (Any chance, Calton, that you could try not to hurt other editors that you disagree with, or does that not matter?) Calton then posted several aggressive messages on Gordon's talk page, rejecting Gordon's protest that he had not added the link, he had merely reverted some massive changes from an anon. See here, where he aggressively accuses Gordon of "dishonesty" and of attempting "to sneak in" the link, here, where he says "And the name is "Calton": only my friends get to call me "Cal", Gordy-boy", here, where he says, "You did it. Don't lie. . . don't waste my time and insult my intelligence by cranking out long-winded excuses", here, where he says (of Orangemonster2k1) ":Hmm, a soul mate for you, Gordon, someone as equally clueless about Wikipedia policy", and here, where he says "Plugging your ears and saying "MAMAMAMAMAMAI'MNOTLISTENINGMAMAMAMA" doesn't change that."

It was after that rather nasty and abusive behaviour that Calton removed links to Gordon's personal sites from one of the Terri Schiavo sub-articles. Being familiar with Wikipedia policy about sources and links, I cannot fault him for removing them, but after his nasty abuse, it is hardly surprising that Gordon took it personally. Gordon then argued vociferously on the talk page, but did not make any huge efforts to keep reverting, and then Calton came here looking for a community ban on him.

Regarding Calton's claim that pushing back sixteen months for evidence is stretching it, I will say that I have personally had almost zero interaction with Calton, and the "reverting not-very-bright troll" edit summary was almost the first time I noticed him — and it really shocked me. Since Gordon was on a wikibreak that lasted for over a year, I can hardly give lots of examples from November 2006. I also think such evidence is important because Calton maintains that there's no obligation to treat Gordon with respect because of the way he has behaved since he arrived, and I maintain that Gordon was treated rudely from the very start.

I disagree with Friday's opinion that the abuse of other editors towards Gordon is irrelevant. The Terri Schiavo talk page was an extremely toxic, venomous place in the summer of 2005. The worst offender was eventually banned by an ArbCom ruling, but I watched for four months before an administrator took action. Administrators should do something about users being aggressive and abusive, rather than recommend bans for people who get upset by the abuse and become disruptive. Gordon is not abusive and aggressive the way Calton is; he just has enormous difficulties letting go, moving on gracefully, letting someone else have the last word. He hasn't been posting at the Terri Schiavo talk pages recently; he's just arguing with everyone here. I wish he wouldn't, and I agree he's not helping himself, but quite frankly, Calton's behaviour in the last few hours has been rather similar (though aggressive, where Gordon is not), being determined to have the last word, continuing to post on the talk page of someone whom he should leave alone, responding at this noticeboard to a comment that the user had crossed out, going to various talk pages where that user had posted, to leave an angry comment, instead of letting go, and moving on.

To answer TenOfAllTrades, yes Gordon has done some useful editing to the encyclopaedia. Only a very small amount of his article editing is in any way connected with promoting his own links. He has done some good work with correction of typos, fixing format, taking a photo and uploading it with a free licence, to replace a fair use image, sometimes finding and adding valuable information. In general, he doesn't have a record of edit warring. His problem has always been that he kept telling people on the talk page that he had done better than the governor, and had come closer to saving Terri, or that he would give long posts with bible verses, or that he'd write in lots of different colours, as if he wanted to impress his personality on the page. None of that is malicious. None of it is "disruptive" to the extent that FuelWagon (who was banned by the ArbCom) was disruptive on that page, calling other editors (particularly Gordon) assholes, and telling them to fuck off.

With regard to Gordon's block log, one block was a completely inappropriate, abusive block (by an admin who was subsequently desysopped by Jimbo for other abusive blocks) of one second, for constantly telling people that he had never been blocked. The other was not for any violation of policy. As far as I remember, the editors at the Terri Schiavo talk page (including myself) made a voluntary agreement to be blocked if they posted (not reverted) more than three times a day on the talk page. Gordon forgot, and was blocked, which he accepted.

For sorting out this mess, I would say that first Calton needs to realize that treating others with respect does not cease to be obligatory just because you may regard someone as a problem user. Second, Gordon and Calton both need to be able to walk away without insisting on having the last word. Third, Gordon seems to understand that we're not going to allow those links, and he isn't edit warring over it. Some of the trouble could have been avoided if Calton, in removing the links, had refrained from making false accusations, and had then refrained from accusing him of lying, and calling him Gordy-boy. If this project of collaborating in building a free encyclopaedia is to work, we really do need to avoid unkindness. Musical Linguist 03:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is little to add to ML's extensive comments above; she understands Gordon as an editor as well as anyone. I deliberately stopped editing Terri Schiavo almost a year ago because of the drain on time; while frequently befuddled by his massive talk posts, I never felt Gordon acted with malice or the intent to disrupt. (The same cannot be said of all on that page.) On the contrary: I feel he is a genuinely well-meaning editor and I've appreciated many of his heartful posts.

But. Like the friend who talks through the movie, a person may not intend disruption but still be disruptive. We have to consider the fact that the benefits Gordon can potentially bring to TS pages are outweighed by the difficulties of his presence. After browsing the above, I'd also support TS-related editing ban, but absolutely cannot support a community ban. As has been noted, these may be one in the same thing, as Gordon only edits to TS. I'm sorry for that, but there are better things to do than parse the massive talk posts that Gordon's editing creates. Marskell 20:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Motion to close

I think we have as much data as we need, and propose that we move towards closure. There seem to me to be four ways forward. Please indicate preferences (e.g. first choice and second choice):

Limit to one post per day on Schiavo-related talk pages

Users endorsing this, sign below

1. First choice. No need to ban him entirely from Schiavo. His edits to the article are not disruptive, and are often helpful, and he seems to accept that his personal links may not be added (although he doesn't agree). His recent disruption on the talk page was at least partly because Calton made a false accusation and was not generous enough to withdraw it, as I have explained above. Musical Linguist 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

   One small question and a half: The question: What if someone asks me a few questions: Should i not be able to respond? Secondly (Half-question) If I am not as bad a user/editor as, say, Calton, why would anyone in their fair mind fairly endorse more stringent restrictions on the victim -and leave the attacker alone to have less punishment? Eh?--GordonWatts 23:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

   You'd answer all of the questions currently raised in a single post or if you are pushed for time, the one you feel is most important - any other questioned raised after that you would answer in the next 24 hour period. You are STILL trying to have the last word on every single post here, STOP, it only evidences what is being said about you. --Fredrick day 23:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

   A community ban on Calton has not been discussed, and his behaviour is not more problematic with regard to Terri Schiavo than elsewhere. There is no particular reason to make a motion regarding Calton, as any administrator can block for disruptive personal attacks, and I would be prepared to do so if I see any more of those "revert not-very-bright troll" edit summaries. As regards responding to questions, you can wait until the next day. If an editor really wants an answer, he will probably ask you on your talk page rather than on the article talk page. Musical Linguist 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

   His recent disruption on the talk page was at least partly because Calton made a false accusation and was not generous enough to withdraw it, as I have explained above. Since it wasn't, you know, actually false, there's nothing to withdrawal. --Calton | Talk 06:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

2. First choice. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3. First choice, with the proviso that if there are repeated violations (let's say three violations in any twelve-month period) this will trigger the article and talk page ban described below. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
4. This could work. I'd suggest adding a qualifier that his talk page posts must be relevant to improving the article. I see recent talk page activity that is definitely off-topic. Friday (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
5. First choice, with the proviso that any other users described herein as having caused perceived or real trouble (at least Calton, and maybe more users) would have the same restrictions. If you do not endorse this proviso, then obviously, you, as a voting editor, are not being fair -but, rather, kicking a person while they are down (voting on an editor only because he is the subject here) -and that would seem to indicate that you should be placed into the same restrictions you recommend. I would add that this diff highlights PROOF POSITIVE that I am being treated unfairly: Never is a person denied the chance to simply respond to accusations, but this is exactly what many suggest to be done, so a support of this proviso here would correct the unfairness -and this (option with this, or a similar proviso) is, therefore, my first, and only choice.--GordonWatts 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

   Gordon, have you ever heard the phrase, "When you're in a hole, stop digging"? People aren't trying to deny you a chance to respond—you've done so at length already. Editors who have advised you to stop posting are offering that suggestion for your own good, as your remarks continue to highlight the very problems at which these sanctions are aimed.

   Calton's problem has never been that he's been prone to verbosity to the point that it disrupts talk pages and creates a nuisance, consequently there is no need to limit the amount of posting he does to talk pages. Such a remedy wouldn't make sense, as it wouldn't solve any perceived problem. Several admins have however advised Calton to take a more civil tone, an area where his conduct could stand some improvement. If enforcement action is required on that front, there are admins who will handle it. It is not your problem to deal with.

   Unless and until you understand that the personal dispute between you and Calton is a very tiny facet of the issue before us you are going to continue to have a rough time of it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

6. Second choice --Fredrick day 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Second choice. ChazBeckett 00:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
8. First choice. Martin | talk • contribs 07:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
   

   Although I would prefer it to be a 6000 words per week (net) limit, for everyone. —The preceding unsigned comment about 6,000 words was added by Martin at the same time he added his 'choice'.--GordonWatts 17:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   I've been rather quiet for the past couple of days (with just a few comments), so I hope no one minds I opine here: Martin, your idea seems good -and I'd say you kind of beat me to the punch. Let me explain: If I am prohibited from making 2 or 3 edits, then I would be unable to correct a typo. Also, Frederick seems to think I'd make a super long post if I were limited to one post. While I am usually NOT very talkative, I can understand his (valid and legitimately good) concern: The overall LENGTH of the talk page is problematic, and, ironically, I was commenting on that when I had to use SEVERAL edits (which would have been impossible had I been limited to one edit per day). So, to conclude: I am not taking a jab at ANYONE, but I think that if ANYTHING is done, then an informal limit on the total words per day per person on the talk pages would be appropriate -and, whatever is done must apply to all -or none at all. Respectfully submitted - (and capitol letter yelling notwithstanding) no offense meant.--GordonWatts 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   Get this straight Gordon, it's been repeated plenty of times - this has nothing at all to do with others, no limits will be placed on others because of this Community action. If you feel that community action needs to taken against someone - start the process, otherwise stop bring up that red herring. --Fredrick day 19:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   "start the process" I never said that I felt that community action needed to be started against my friend Martin Gugino, for what these two editors ([42] and [43]) think was excessive posting on the talk page. I simply said that I typically post far less than he did, and thus I do not feel that I should be treated worse then him -if the "excessive posting" on talk pages here is my only "crime." Did you actually look to see that this double-standard existed, Fredrick? Because, if you don't address this double standard (a valid issue, not a red herring), then you show unfair actions and bias. Here's the "take home message," Frederick: All was well (small flames had cooled down) when Calton filed this, and for you to continue to press for more action (by your comment above, the one I quoted here) is inappropriate; Sometimes the best thing to do is to do nothing. (Let me clarify: I am very frustrated at your myopic focus on this one editor (me) when other editors post far more than me on talk pages (my "crime"), but I do not wish to offend you; Simply put yourself in my shoes: Would you like it if you were treated any differently? OK, that said, regardless of whether or not I get any discipline, I do not wish to offend you, just speak my peace.--GordonWatts 02:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

   Missing the point again, but let's grant, for the sake of argument, that MartinGugino's alleged verbosity is an issue. The numbers, when added up, show as byte counts for Talk page comments as of February 20 on Talk:Terri Schiavo & Talk:Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case:

   MartinGugino: 24,641 bytes

   GordonWatts: 109,579 bytes

   Not even close.--Calton | Talk 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

   Looking at only one day is not significant evidence -look at the last several weeks -or hold still.--GordonWatts 06:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

1. First choice, good idea. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2. First choice. Sarah 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
3. First choice. rspeer / ???ds? 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
4. First choice. Leebo⁸⁶ 11:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Third choice - even one post a day like this is too many. MastCell 05:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Probation / mentorship

Users endorsing this, sign below

1. Second choice. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2. First choice. Mostly per Musical Linguist above (a shocker!), he's shown some promise and maybe just a little help is all he needs. If it doesn't work, it'll end up at my #2 choice anyway, which is where this is heading regardless of what we choose if things don't work out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Last choice. I'm quite skeptical of this. He's been editing for how long? And we think the problem is a lack of feedback about this editing? This seems unlikely to me. Friday (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Third choice. rspeer / ???ds? 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
5. First choice. As some have said on the first suggestion, this user has shown some good faith edits. However, he's also shown a few acts of WP:OWN and pushing external links which fail WP:EL. If someone could help him keep his edits in check, that would help. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 07:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban from articles and talk pages related to Terri Schiavo

Users endorsing this, sign below

1. Second choice Guy (Help!) 22:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2. First choice, as long as this includes related talk pages also. Otherwise it's not helpful. Friday (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3. First choice, again with the qualification offered by Friday. --Fredrick day 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
4. First choice, per Friday. ChazBeckett 00:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
5. First choice. I've now added "and talk pages" to the description of this section as it seems to be a significant majority opinion that that is an important part of the solution. Mangojuice^talk 01:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
6. First choice, per Friday. One post per day, knowing Gordon, will simply be the same nonsense except all of it packed into one excruciatingly long post. An improvement, but not by much. --Calton | Talk 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
7. First choice. I think it's best for him to make a clean break and prove himself elsewhere, if he's so inclined. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   No offense meant, Bull, but I've been around for many, many edits, and have proven myself as a peaceful (if perseverant) editor, and I am, quite frankly, too old to go around proving myself to no end for people who don't know me. That which you request of others might, itself, be forced upon you; Would you like it if people asked you to put forth much labor for such an unpaid job as having to continually prove yourself? Just curious...--GordonWatts 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   Gordon, what's being asked is for some evidence that you're willing to edit in a manner that doesn't result in lengthy discussions about your behavior. I happen to agree that moving away from Schiavo-related articles would be beneficial for you and the project. ChazBeckett 17:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   For one, even in my many thousands of edits, I usually have NO problems of ANY sort (be they about myself or otherwise) "what's being asked is for some evidence..." be careful what you ask for, Chaz, you just might get it. OK: Here's new info no previously submitted: This woman quite succinctly points out that I am not malicious, OK? THESE people on yet a THIRD forum agree (6th post from bottom): "Svaha wrote: <quoted text> I knew Gordon would. Deep down underneath all the crap he's piled on himself he's a nice guy. It surprised me with James. It's good to be surprised:-)". Enough? Why don't we ask about evidence about you? Would you like that? A presumption of guilt on your part here is inappropriate. I am (and you are) innocent until proven guilty. Did I give you the evidence you seek? (I found evidence from THREE forums that I am not a trouble-maker. Is they sufficient?)--GordonWatts 18:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think the request was for anecdotal evidence from non-Wikipedians. The idea is that you should expand your focus on Wikipedia outside of Terri Schiavo, and I agree that it would be beneficial. The numbers above indicated that you are limited in your Wikipedia experience outside Schiavo articles, and that was what was meant by "prove himself elsewhere" I believe. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   I have made many edits to non-Schiavo articles, both here at Wikipedia and elsewhere, fyi. Moreover, I have a real life and real duties (even more-non-Schiavo-related) -I don't expect that I shall edit or post much of anything anywhere anytime soon. So this is much ado about nothing.--GordonWatts 18:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   Well, that didn't go as hoped. Gordon, this is exactly the type of behavior that leads people to support editing restrictions on you. I wrote two sentences in attempt to summarize what I believe this discussion boiled down to and you responded with a whole paragraph of quotes from unrelated messageboards and a quite antagonistic attitude towards me. The point is that your behavior is causing problems here, even if it's completely unintentional. Countless people have tried to offer advice, but your response is usually similar to the one I received. Just try listening to what others are saying instead of immediately crafting a rebuttal. Believe it or not, most people are trying to help you here. In any case, I've said all I have to say. Ignore it if you wish, but please don't respond to it. ChazBeckett 18:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   "responded with a whole paragraph" - excuse me, but it was only 6 lines -only 4 more than you wrote -but that is appropriate -because there are like 4 or 5 editors responding to me; So, since I am in all liklihood responding with less words than are being directed at me (remember: You asked me a question, so I answered), I am not out of order. Also, what difference does it make IF I make a rebuttal? As the accused, I SHOULD be allowed the last word, but I think I'll let you have it -if you want it so badly.--18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

8. First choice. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Second choice. Please see my reasoning under Community ban. Moreover, any point he had to make about the Schiavo articles has surely been made (many times over) by now. ObiterDicta 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
10. First choice. Kyle Barbour 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Second choice. Sarah 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Second choice. rspeer / ???ds? 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Second choice. Leebo⁸⁶ 11:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
14. First choice, especially in light of ongoing stuff like this. Although the topic ban should probably be time-limited (e.g. 3-6 months). MastCell 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

    It's one thing for you to complain about my one 500+ word post here, but did you actually read it? If you claim that my posts are too long, I will not buy your argument -simply for three reasons: #1: In the last 2-3 days, my posts on this page have been only a small portion of the total; #2: In recent times (not just the past few days), I have not edited as much as Martin, and he is not criticised for anything related to editing too much, so I should not be either. #3: Usually, my posts are only a small portion (or at least not disruptive -as shown by the fact that even after over 4,000 edits, I have had no discipline, bans, blocks, or anything (except one minor misunderstanding, and one "spite" block for one-second -as ML explained above). So, based on the facts (length of my posts) and my clean record -and the fact you apparently haven't even educated yourself or read all the posts in question, I don't accept your argument. If you read my posts, then you can comment on them. If I have had no major discipline AT ALL, then any generalisation about labeling/implying I'm a trouble-maker -is absolutely myopicly short-sighted and false.--GordonWatts 06:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban

Users endorsing this, sign below

1. Second choice; I see little reason for Arbcom here. Friday (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Second choice, per Friday. --Calton | Talk 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Second choice. I think he's sufficiently disruptive within that particular context that even a moderated degree of interaction with Schiavo-related topics is likely to have a negative effect. If we can't ban him from the topic but leave him free to act elsewhere, we should just politely show him the door. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Second choice. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   I have a dumb question (I'll direct at Jeff, since he's an admin, but anyone can answer it), so please don't get mad -as I don't know the answer: Jeff here voted, yet the policy (at the very top of this page) clearly states that "While comments from all editors are welcome, please note that "voting" won't be taking place, including on proposed community bans" -how do we reconcile these dichotomies? Thanks in advance?--GordonWatts --18:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

5. Very reluctant first choice. I was ready to go with the "one post a day" option—but better defined, as Gordon has a tendency to interpret rulings (as this sort of is) and comments rather inventively and to his advantage and to wikilawyer tendentiously. However, then I saw this in his endorsement of the first choice: having caused perceived or real trouble. [emphasis mine] So, despite numerous people telling him his behavior needs correction he still thinks he acts appropriately. This is not a case of an editor who gets carried away on Schiavo-related articles needing to be saved from himself; he thinks that repeatedly posting long multi-coloured rants and repeating points over-and-over again in the face of a consensus against him in an attempt at attaining his goals through attrition is acceptable. I see no reason to let him carry this behaviour to other topics. ObiterDicta 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   "posting long multi-coloured rants" I'm not the only person who posts lengthy posts on occasion, but I usually either post short posts -or none at all in talk. Also, what's with the multi-coloured comment? You can not be prejudiced? Color has its place (and is, therefore, sometimes used), and unless others complain about this point a lot, you are out of order and mostly alone here. "tendency to interpret rulings" You don't read the case here much, attorney: Most of the evidence is that most of my posts have NOTHING to do with my comments on my court petition for Terri Schiavo. PS: No one answered my question to Jeff about the fact we're all voting -even though the rules on this page prohibit such.--18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

   I rest my case. ObiterDicta 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

6. Second choice. Kyle Barbour 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Refer to ArbCom

Users endorsing this, sign below

1. Third choice Guy (Help!) 22:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Mangojuice^talk 01:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
3. First choice. There is no consensus of wikipedia editors to do anything in this case. You have under ten people saying he should be restricted to one edit per day on Terry Schiavo. A group this size is not empowered to do anything other than use wikipedia's dispute resolution process. You guys aren't on arbcom. If you want to decide things like this run for arbcom, don't act as if this is a sanctioned all-comers arbcom (just think how biased that could get). Arbcom should also be amenable to Gordon, as it is about as fair as thing gets at wikipedia. Any counter claims can also be evaluated there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.91.28.232 (talk • contribs).
4. Second choice, see above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Third choice. If Gordon's to be let anywhere near the Schiavo articles, restrictions on his behaviour need to be better spelled out than the first choice above, as Gordon has a tendency toward inventive interpretations of decisions and wikilawyering. ArbCom is the best place to craft such restrictions. ObiterDicta 18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Second choice. Usually community bans are for those who have continued to exhaust community patience beyond all other forms of resolution. This looks like a good arbcom case --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 07:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Second choice - agree with User:ObiterDicta. MastCell 05:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Auxiliary straw poll

Given that Gordon still hasn't gotten the message (as and persists in this comment from today, ...It seems in these links above that a small consensus [emphasis mine] exists to exclude the materials, and I accept that, but, at the same time, I keep the material under review, and my "vote" as it were, is "include" for every single delete above...), I say that an unambiguous declaration that an actual consensus -- not Gordon's claim of "small consensus" -- is needed. Some of you think he can learn: let's see. --Calton | Talk 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton - there are already too many polls. This is not a productive use of one's time. (I mean just look at this section: MOST of it is by other editors, so when someone claims I post a lot, it is an obvious lie: Here is proof -some numbers for you and my other critics: I just parsed this section (the "Motion to close" and "Auxiliary straw poll" 'voting' section), and what I find is quite enlightening: Even though, by all rights, I should be able to offer the same length of defense as my critics' prosecution, a quick parse of this section shows that, before this edit, there were 3,058 words by other editors, and only 5,225 total, that is, I only wrote 2,167 words in defense to the 3,058 words of the other editors, so I should get 891 more words, but I am not talkative or verbose, and I shall only use these additional comments to defend my point, brining my total only up to 2,300, far below that of the other verbose editors.) People have enough difficulty actually reading the comments posted -it is not necessary to solicit new votes: We've already "voted" above -and, in direct conflict with the Wikipedia policy, which, at the top of this page, clearly states: "While comments from all editors are welcome, please note that "voting" won't be taking place..."--GordonWatts 07:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

1. No, the links fail WP:EL, WP:RS, and WP:COI.--Calton | Talk 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2. so much for the idea that he's given up on his POV/COI-pushing. Isn't it clear by now that his plan is to keep pushing until editors who oppose his pages have enough and just leave? Can we not just blacklist his free-hosted webpages and kill this one stone dead? --Fredrick day 06:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Agree. And blacklisting is a good idea, Fredrick. But keep in mind that he maintains multiple mirrors of the same exact stuff across multiple websites and page hosts. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
4. This is another example of attempting to wikilawyer around our accepted understandings of voting, consensus, and the policies/guidelines revolving around his external links. Leebo⁸⁶ 11:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Yup. The links should not be added, as has been explained to him repeatedly. They should be put on the spam blacklist for good measure. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
6. As much as it pains me to agree with Calton, I have to in this case. Personal websites can not be used as reference. Now, for example if Calton referenced Gordon's websites, that would be OK, but Gordon can't reference his own website. I had the same problem when I referenced my media website for a article. Someone else could reference my site but I couldn't reference it myself. The FL Supreme Court links, I think could stay, but that is a gray area. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 20:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

   Although I would think that many would disagree that the sites should be linked (no matter who does it), as they are not reliable sources. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

   Also, the idea that someone else could add them worries me, as it could encourage Gordon to continue to lobby for their addition. Leebo⁸⁶ 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

   Yeah, that's exactly what this was supposed to stop. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

   I completely understand what you all are trying to say....but personal websites shouldn't be allowed. My site is a media news site...kinda different. But no personal (GeoCities, etc) sites should be referenced by anyone. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

   "but personal websites shouldn't be allowed. My site is a media news site...kinda different. But no personal (GeoCities, etc) sites should be referenced by anyone" Orange Monster, my friend, just because a website is on Geocities or Members.aol.com does not make it a "personal" or a "news" site; Also, since I address this myth more fully below, I shall not respond here and duplicate myself.--GordonWatts 07:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

   Right... it sounded like you were saying that Gordon's (personal) site would be okay if someone else added it to the article. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

   It did, didn't it? Sorry about that. I rush when I type sometimes:). - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 20:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

7. I support this. Gordon's links to his personal site do not belong in Wikipedia. I'd hope that he can simply respect the consensus against them, but put them on the blacklist if it becomes necessary. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Blacklisting isn't the answer; what I view as the real problem here is that Gordon is trying to Wikilawyer to continuing a dead discussion, far beyond the community's patience. Mangojuice^talk 03:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
9. I agree that Gordon's newspaper and personal sites are not suitable for use as external links or reliable sources. Sarah 04:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

   Now, hold on just a second, Sarah: You told me here that "Gordon, if you wish to discuss the validity of using certain links or lobby for policy change, you need to do that in the appropriate forum. Advocating for it and offering it as compromise in the middle of discussion of a proposal to ban you is not the right place. " And, I accepted your proposal here, where I redacted the comments via "strike-out," OK? So, if you wish for me to not discuss this matter here, why do you think it's OK for you to push and persist? To be guilty of a double-standard? (And, you are not the worst offender at all: Look at all the others who signed above advocating the same issue -even though this is NOT the proper forum for it -even as you rightly said.) However, if you all want to discuss the issue, then I shall ask you all one question, and I shall await the answer: If this and this are the only reporters to have reported on something -that really did happen -and CAN be verified by calling Terri Schiavo's parents and asking them, then who should we use as a source? If you say "no one," then you are being a bad historian; if you say "Gordon and Cheryl," then I accept these as more verifiable than Jayson Blair, and he *was* verifiable enough to publish his story; If you say someone else, then I ask who would be the source.--GordonWatts 06:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

10. The blacklist is a tool which should probably be employed here, although it doesn't address the underlying problem, which is a failure to recognize and respect consensus. MastCell 06:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This section & related subsections are getting so long, that I'm not going to attempt to reply in the correct places, but I just want to know one thing: Has every single person here actually read each and every post on this page regarding this case? Can you look me in the face and certify honestly that you've read all of my replies? The reason I ask is because if you haven't actually read the advocacy for all sides, then you can't fairly claim you're informed enough to opine or vote with any accuracy. Ten of Trades got onto me recently for occasionally repeating points (I usually try not to repeat myself, but it does sometimes happen). I understand his concern: I should never have to repeat myself, but I find myself confronting editors who state falsehoods (see below where musical Linguist corrected one such falsehood) apparently haven't read the case and facts, and I feel like repeating myself. For example, I've stated that some editors in this discussion act like they know all about me and suggest my main (or only) purpose on Wikipedia is to promote my webpages -and that myth prevailed (due to editors not having enough thoroughness to review the facts) until Musical Linguist correctly pointed out that VERY FEW of my edits have anything at all to do with my webpages. Also, I'd like to know something: If http://GordonWatts.com is my personal page, why do people still refer to http://Members.aol.com/Gww1210 as my personal webpage. This is a newspaper -and whether it meets your criteria for WP:Verifiability or not, the fact remains: This is not a personal website, no matter how many times you say it, and for you to keep saying it implies you are either trying to insult me, continue to push this as an issue, or are simply not willing to be informed. Another thing that annoys me: People are complaining about my supposed verbosity, when my friend Martin posts a lot more on the talk page in question -even though I admit Calton is correct in claiming that occasionally I have posted more than Martin. Oh, and one last thing: Before anyone complains about the length of my post, please note: My posts have been only a SMALL PART of the total posts in the last 2-3 days, OK? Could you please actually READ my post here (and my prior posts) before commenting? Also, please review the last 100 edits or so of mine before this debacle -or else you won't be able to legitimately say you know anything about me.--GordonWatts 06:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Essay vs. Soapboxing

Where does one end and where does the other begin. If an essay is created, then it is open to editors to change by consensus, but how far can it change? Can consensus change an essay into something opposing it's original position? If an essay is just one person's point of view and many other disagree then should that essay stand?

I know several of you know exactly which essay I have in mind, however, please lets keep this general, because my interest in this topic goes beyond any one essay. This is something I think needs to be more clearly spelled out. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. I've noticed that essays in the Wikipedia space tend to retain their original points of view, most of the time (and yes, this is one time when we are not strictly NPOV, by consensus) -- however, they are indeed open to "merciless editing." Essays in the user space are generally safe from this. An essay in the Wikipedia space is not actually protected by any policy I know from being changed completely from its original intent--it just doesn't happen that way most of the time. Most of the time. Perhaps we've found an exception. Antandrus (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Essays in the user space are generally safe from this.", I must disagree, people don't own their userspace, and an essay in that space should be treated as common property just as much as any other place, unless I am very wrong. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

to Quote from WP:PG --

An essay is any page that is not actionable or instructive, regardless of whether it's authorized by consensus. Essays tend to be opinionated. Essays need not be proposed or advertised, you can simply write them, as long as you understand that you do not generally speak for the entire community. If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace. It does not follow that any page that is not a policy or a guideline is therefore an essay; there are plenty of pages in the Wikipedia namespace that are none of the three.

This does appear to make it acceptiable to "own" an essay in your user space. Gnangarra 19:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

...after edit conflict with the above...

I'm afraid you're very wrong, but don't take it too hard. :D As a matter of courtesy, essays in userspace are generally left as the author wrote them, and merciless editing – unless specifically invited – is frowned upon. Putting an essay in one's own userspace is way of saying, "This is my opinion". It's not polite for a third party to come along and say, "Your opinion is incorrect/stupid/badly expressed, so I rewrote it for you. You'll like your new opinion much better."

This is not to say that community standards don't apply to userspace. If someone writes an essay with the theme 'The following Wikipedians are assholes', then it would be appropriate to step in and ask them to change or delete the page. There's also nothing which prevents an editor from copying an essay from another user's space (everything here is under the GFDL, after all) and modifying it to suit themselves.

Honestly though, I think that it's even silly to edit war over essays in Wikipedia space. If you disagree with an opinion piece, then write a rebuttal or a statement of support for a contrary position. Add appropriate links to the 'See also' sections of each essay, and you're done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional guidelines from Wikipedia:User_page#How do I create a user subpage

There are several common uses for user subpages:

3.To delineate views on Wikipedia, its functioning, or behavior of Wikipedians in general.

This also supports the position that essay in user space are acceptiable. It's considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page and subpages without their permission, however the space does still belong to the community Gnangarra 19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

HighinBC, clarification: I meant that people generally don't edit them, not that they can't or shouldn't. Antandrus (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So I could create an essay in my userspace presenting my own POV, and expect it to not be subjected to alternate points of view? That is a privilege I would rather do without, I would go to a web hosting site if I wanted to put something like that up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that POV is only inherently a bad thing when it comes to text of articles. Essays and user pages may absolutely reflect a certain point of view. IMO, essays you write in your own user space are mostly ignored anyway.. but if you do go far outside of community norms, such a page may wind up at WP:MFD. In Wikipedia space, it would be more likely to generate debate and rewriting, but in user space, it's pretty much request deletion or nothing. Mangojuice^talk 20:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mostly, yes. If you don't want to exercise that privilege, of course you're welcome to put your own opinion essays elsewhere. In general we allow people a reasonable amount of freedom in their own userspace, as long as they're not disrupting the project and as long as they are making useful contributions.

Note that in general there's much more tolerance for Wikipedia-related essays. If someone is using their userspace solely to publish political screeds, as an outlet for original research, or to attack other editors, then intervention is more likely. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that essays in userspace should really be edited, at least in the main text. In essence, the individual is saying, "These are my views on this given issue." It doesn't make much sense for another person to come by and say, "No, these are your views and insights on this issue." If anything, creating to or adding a response or criticism section seems like a better avenue for input. Or, at least, I would take it as strongly implied that if I had an essay, say, evaluating Wikipedia in my userspace that it would have an implicit prefix of "bitnine's analysis of..." It's not an issue of ownership, just that there is an implicit attribution there, and someone else altering an essay is somewhat akin to editing a (POV or not) quotation. I'd say you should consider refraining from altering a userspace essay in the same manner you'd consider refraining from altering an attributed quotation. At best, qualifiers or responses should be added to provide a context. Bitnine 10:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And as an additional note, I don't think this necessarily meshes entirely with the general dampening on soapboxing. Wikipedia is definitely not the place to go on about your least favorite racial group or your favorite political party. You should go somewhere else if the subject of an essay is unrelated in such a manner. That sort of thing is going to be detrimental without much in the ways of redeeming features. However, being able to discuss your views on and analysis of Wikipedia (I think, at least) is something necessary and beneficial to the project. That isn't to say that such essays can't be bad or even disruptive, but a categorical declaration probably shouldn't be made. Bitnine 10:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting issue - I'm aware of an essay (in Wiki space) which was created essentially as a snip of comments a second person left on an unrelated talk page. While GFDL clearly says one releases their content to be used for any purpose, I am not really sure whether the writer of the actual comment can expressly withhold permission for a talk page comment to be incorporated as somebody else's essay (albeit with appropriate attribution). Any ideas? Orderinchaos78 05:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So to summarise the salient points:

• Essays are used for people to express their opinion about Wikipedia (but not about other things, because that would be soapboxing);
• Essays in the project namespace are open to editing like any other page, whereas essays written by a user in their own user space are customarily not edited as they are meant to represent one individual's point of view;
• Wherever they may be located, essays must adhere to the behavioural policies, just like any other page.

Add to this if I've missed anything important. --bainer (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

See the history of WP:AUM for a previous instance of this. Essentially, in both cases an essay was created and largely WP:OWNed by one person, while several other users strongly disagreed with the 'facts and conclusions' it drew... and definitely didn't want it to be used as a basis for changes in policy or practice. There was edit warring, moving of the page to user space and back, blocks, incivility, et cetera.

My own take is that if one, or a few, users want to maintain an essay in Wikipedia space to present a particular point of view and will not accept revisions or corrections which challenge that viewpoint then the essay should be marked as 'rejected'. It is something which is not agreed to by a consensus of Wikipedians... ergo it is rejected. The arguments can remain displayed, but it is indicated that they aren't accepted as being valid. --CBD 17:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the particular instance in question would have been handled better by ignoring it, as most of the weaker essays in Wikipedia namespace do get ignored. Failing that, at the point where WP:OWN began to become an issue a polite suggestion to the essay's creator to pagemove into user space would have been appropriate. As a practical matter, the community does give greater respect for the original author when an essay is in user space because that generally represents a personal perspective rather than a shared perspective. Two that I've started, for instance, are Wikipedia:No angry mastodons and User:Durova/Recusal. Although theoretically the same policies apply, it would be hard to imagine another editor doing much to the latter page. Most of all, whenever someone writes a critical essay that gains real attention we ought to be asking ourselves why this strikes a nerve. Is there some kernel of truth to it? And if so, how do we address the substance of the complaint? Durova^Charge! 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In that particular instance, the user in question commenced a long-running edit-war citing his essay as justification: he even managed to persuade some sympathetic admins to unblock him when he was caught doing it. Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance was written off the back of it after a quote from Brion—which he later repudiated—was used to prop up WP:AUM and justify the edit- and wheel-warring. In that case, trying to ignore it would not have been an acceptable option. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor point - actually the quote used to 'prop up / justify' AUM came from Jamesday rather than Brion. As to the substance, is ignoring a page linked from high traffic websites "an acceptable option"? :] --CBD 12:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the essay template seems to note that well enough, without the stamp of a large red X at the top of someone's thoughts. Specifically applying a rejected tag seems like the sort of thing that's very likely to generate combativeness and nonproductive exchanges. Bitnine 19:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in agreement with Bitnine on that. Template:Essay already clearly marks something as an opinion. It expressly indicates that the page's contents are not to be taken as policy or a guideline. Slapping a Template:Rejected on – or worse, edit warring to make it stick – just seems likely to inflame a dispute. (The community has decided that your opinion is unworthy—so nyah!) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bitnine makes a good point. The community handles most of the weaker essays through benign neglect. Maybe an MFD housecleaning would be a good idea across the category for flawed and minimal value essays in Wikipedia namespace. Durova^Charge! 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, marking something 'rejected' can spark bad feelings / edit wars / et cetera. However, when those things already exist and the essay contains not just a disputed POV, but things which people argue are factually false it's not an unreasonable step if corrections aren't going to be allowed. --CBD 12:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll take a step back and take a look at this conceptually. An essay in Wikispace should probably serve to note a line of thought in the community and be subject to editing. If I post an essay "WikiWidgets are awesome" where 20% of the community thinks that widgets are awesome, it is helpful to note this position and that it is not held by the majority of the community. By posting it in Wikispace, I'm sending a flag to have it edited and refined by users with similar views, or even fact-checking and refinement by critical editors. The nature of an essay, however, is inherently tied to expressing a viewpoint. If you don't share this viewpoint, rather than trying to alter the essay to "WikiWidgets Suck", it's probably better to add a section on criticism or how the viewpoint is not held by the majority of the community.

Really, I think this is a better representation because in all actuality, the viewpoints expressed by essays generally do exist and should not be subject to negation, even if unpopular. This doesn't mark them as exempt from criticism, but I think that the challenge is expressing and acknowledging such criticism in a healthy and constructive manner. While I'm talking about abstract ideals and examples, I think that a very good avenue in the context of the above would be adding a small section discussing the criticism/popularity of the view on WikiWidgets and a link to a well founded and written essay of "Failings of WikiWidgets." At the very least, I'd hold this as highly preferable to edit warring and other sorts of extended conflicts on essays. Bitnine 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the above makes good sense. The problem here was an outbreak of lameness which would have been better solved if people (me included) had just sat back and thought about it for a while - no, actually, what should have happened is it should have been protected at an earlier point to stop the silliness. But whatever. However, the end result is fine - we have the essay, we have the contradictory perspective. No harm done. We learn a bit about how to handle this stuff in future, and move on. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban?

Does anyone have any objections as to community banning Jacknicholson aka Marshal2.0 aka Marshalbannana and any new sock that appears? He has:

1. Edit warred at various articles, breaking 3RR with his accounts and with a range of dynamic IPs in order to insert silly videos or blatantly false information.
2. Deleted 3RR reports concerning him from the noticeboard
3. Attacked various users, notably User:jesup, creating the Marshall2.0 accounts to make a WP:POINT sock accusation against him
4. Repeatedly vandalised my and others' pages (my entire userspace is semiprotected as of now) using several dozen dynamic IPs all originating from BellSouth

He has not:

1. Actually done anything useful

The last bit of userspace-related vandalism is discussed here, and I'm pretty sure that it's the same user as the vandalism took place outside of school hours and from adresses all originating from the same ISP, as well as with intervals of at least a few minutes between each addition. yandman

Hi Yandman, could you justify indefinitely blocking them as vandalism / troll only accounts? If so, I would suggest you go ahead. Addhoc 12:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to block MarshallBanana indef anyway for the reasons stated above, I just prefer it to be a community ban so as to make processing the next sock that appears faster. yandman 12:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal-only accounts can be banned without community consensus. Durova^Charge! 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, my mistake. I'll "charge" then... yandman 19:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This is not a "vandal-only" account, he appears to have edited several articles on the Iraq War. While this might be "edit warring", you haven't put together any evidence to that effect (and I've yet to see a one-sided edit war ... who were the other parties?). The vandalism link above is from an anon IP, not from this user. Even if it runs out the anon and Marshall are one and the same, this would be vandalism, not vandal-only. Time-limited blocks would be appropriate. Being "pretty sure" is not a good enough cause for either a ban or a block. And btw, find a disinterested admin to do the block and/or consider using wikipedia's arbitration process, otherwise it looks like you are getting into a battle with an editor then using your admin powers to kick him out forever. There certainly is no strong consensus to ban this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.28.232 (talk • contribs)

"Pretty sure", no. "Absolutely certain", yes. And I am disinterested, as I've never edited any of the articles in question. I found out about this guy after several userpages were vandalised with images of cocks, and they all had at one time reverted edits by Marshall/Jacknicholson. yandman 11:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This page's intro

Someone with more tech skill than I have should probably make a few adjustments. A link to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing would be good along with a reminder that community bans for disruption are based on a consensus of uninvolved editors. Editors who've had conflict with the user in question may comment and supply evidence, but they should not attempt to vote upon the outcome. Durova^Charge! 18:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, is that how it's supposed to work? I've been ignoring all the ban talk here because I wasn't involved in any of it, and frankly the bickering was annoying me. If it's supposed to be run the way you say, I may very well pay more attention. —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 14:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, the key to getting WP:DR established as a guideline was that it established a consensus of uninvolved editors as the requirement. Otherwise there's a serious danger of good people getting railroaded out of the project. Editors who participate here ought to get a reminder about that - not all of them are as experienced as the sysops who populated most of these discussions when they were at WP:AN and WP:ANI. Durova^Charge! 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jonathan ryan indef blocked

This user has been indefinitely blocked for persistent image copyright violations, despite numerous warnings on his talk page over many months asking him to stop. One place that he's been taking images is airliners.net where their material clearly states their images are copyrighted and who the photographer is (usually different people for multiple images). Nonetheless, Jonathan says he's the author of all the images. Most recently, he is strongly suspected of using sock puppets. I have spent the past hour going through his contributions and deleting his recent copyright violations, and spent substantial time back in October doing the same. He has exhausted my (and I think community patience) with his persistent blatant violations of copyright policies. I think this is a pretty clearcut case, but want to note it here in case anyone disagrees with the block. --Aude (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone purposely violating copyrights like that must not be tolerated. I support this. Mangojuice^talk 03:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I like to see specific evidence supplied when I decide whether to support a block. If this is verified then I'm on board. Durova^Charge! 03:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

See his talk page which is filled with numerous warnings about image copyright violations, which started out as good faith, polite messages [44] [45] explaining what is allowed and not (e.g. taking images from other websites), and other warnings [46]. To see behavior continuing is problematic for Wikipedia. His contributions (vanity issues) to terrorism-related articles are a bit disturbing too [47], but likely false. --Aude (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Block this user. Geo. Talk to me 06:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• If there are many violations and the user has been warned, this user should immediately be banned, but not on "community" grounds. And, if you want to put this here, please provide links to evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.91.28.232 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Whether this user is blocked or not, his page displays every hijacker from the September 11 WTC attacks. I would like to move it so people don't see it unexpectedly. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Aude (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nkras banned

Nkras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now formally under a community ban, so further discussing a closed matter is pointless. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nkras (see socks) has been returning to get his various IPs blocked for various abuses,[48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] including threats of meatpuppetry on Talk:Marriage (which were repeatedly deleted and which User:Rbj has restored and "taken ownership of"; I've asked Rbj to stop and I currently expect that he will comply[54]). Anyway, if I understand correctly, Nkras has not yet been formally banned by the community. With the threats, and five six blocks in three four days, and the previous widespread sentiment that everyone's patience was exhausted (ANI archive), I think it's time we got around to formalizing that ban. — coelacan talk — 08:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone clarify whether it's good or bad wikiquette to ask the blocking admins to weigh in here? I'd like to do so but not if it's ill-advised. — coelacan talk — 08:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • While I can't speak for policy, it does seem that administrators are still members of the community. Justin Eiler 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, my concern would be whether or not this would be canvassing. — coelacan talk — 23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly support ban from firsthand observation of Nkras' conduct. He was given several chances before the block was made indefinite, and each time returned to his old ways of revert-warring and incivility. After the block was extended to indefinite, he's threatened sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry by editing anonymously [55], and repeatedly revert-warred after this comment was removed as inappropriate to put it back. This makes it very clear that he has absolutely no intent of contributing constructively, and will continue to gleefully cause disruption as long as he's allowed to do it. Nkras has thoroughly exhausted the great deal of patience shown him, and there's no other way this can end. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Bold text unbolded to avoid this turning into a vote. Viridae^Talk 12:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• I certainly support a ban. It's become too tiresome trying to undo the damage he and his sockpuppets have done, and trying to reason with him is an exercise in futility. Jeffpw 14:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• As the target of some of his incivil behavior, I support a ban. This sort of thing simply can't be tolerated. Sockpuppets/meatpuppets should be easy enough to spot and deal with. --Coredesat 15:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• I strongly support a ban. Nkras appears to admit to the use of IP sockpuppets here, where he attempts to justify his actions. WjBscribe 16:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• I would prefer to get a WP:RFCU before conclusively supporting a ban on Nkras. I definitely support a ban on the person behind the anon accounts, but would prefer more evidence before associating the two, at least in my mind. Please disregard my previous reticence--I am (after this edit) firmly persuaded that this anon user is Nkras, and fully in support of a community ban. Justin Eiler 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In light of this edit, I would say that the gauntlet has been thrown down. Justin Eiler 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Did you notice this edit where I struck out the sentence, thereby retracting? 63.229.192.53 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely agree with the ban, what with "your rules and policies are not binding upon me" and "war has been declared". --John Kenneth Fisher 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I had crossed the statement out and therefore retracted. You are again being intellectually dishonest, and not presenting a complete statement of fact. This is a usual tactic, and is consistently used against me. Here is another complete statement:

""disruptive behaviour"? IOW, dissenting and challenging the authority of the protected editors, articles, and WikiProjects. I tried to play the game, however, members of my socio-political and religious caste aren't welcome here. We challenge the prevailing groupthink. There are even editors who smugly delete posts and remove traces of editors - well - former editors - in a way that parallels the fate of those who defied the State in 1984. Because Google search results present Wikipedia articles at the top of the heap, with the control of articles on core social issues as marriage, et. al., by the cultural left, post-modernists, LGBT and GS or what ever you call them this millenia, it is all the more insidious. I take this threat to objective truth very seriously, as I do with the aggregious insult to my religion by coelacan. I have been called to account for my political and religious views, but protected editors - coelacan being one example - has never been blocked for a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. That is why your rules and policies are not binding upon me. 63.228.54.148 05:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)" 63.229.192.53 23:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, Fisher, et. al. are amongst the worst of the cyberauthoritarians I have ever come across. Wikipedia is a pleasantly authoritarian state, a protected class enforces the rules as they see fit. 63.229.192.53 23:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is nicely supplemented by this abuse. — coelacan talk — 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A understandable, frustrated reaction to an arrogant editor. Now, about your violations of WP:CIVIL. When will that be addressed by those present, and by Administrators? 63.229.192.53 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have never insulted Nkras's religion. — coelacan talk — 23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: For the record, coelacan attributed that I stated that treif is kosher:
  "Eating pork is kosher.... You have been so advised. Be guided accordingly." — Nkras, on kashrut and the Talmud [6]
  "Learn how to quote accurately and in context. I removed a selectively edited quote on your user page that resulted in an intellectually dishonest presentation of one of my arguments." — Nkras, on new developments in Talmudic scholarship (and vandalism of the preceding quote) [7] [8]
  Both entries are from coelacan's user space. Why hasn't WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA been ever enforced against coelacan? Is that editor somehow exempt from a month long block? Or any block? Or any responsibility? 63.229.192.53 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there's anything wrong with those quotes. They provide direct links to your full statements. And this matter is discussed in more detail at User talk:Coelacan#Nkras quotes. — coelacan talk — 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: This is your use of selective quotation:

"Eating pork is kosher.... You have been so advised. Be guided accordingly."

Here is the complete quote:

"I will not agree to any "consensus": a group of editors could reach a consensus that eating pork is kosher, though it remains treif."

You, therefore, constructed a false statement to bring derision upon another editor and that editor's religion: it is a blatant attack, a violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and possibly other Wikipedia policies. You have not been called to account for this attack, nor have you removed the material from your user space. 63.229.192.53 00:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I note that I forgot to suggest a duration for the ban. Given that Nkras has in the past stated, "I will not agree to any "consensus"",[56] and has subsequently demonstrated that indeed he has no intention of ever editing by consensus, I propose that the ban be indefinite. — coelacan talk — 21:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A community ban is, by definition and convention, indefinite. Just to spite you... :-) --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. WP:BAN doesn't seem to make that clear; it discusses "durations" several times with no mention of that caveat that I can see. — coelacan talk — 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: For the record, here is the entire quote in context, which coelacan excluded:

" "Same-sex marriage" is not a subset of marriage, because it is not marriage. It is a wholly fabricated construct. Members of the same sex cannot get married, because they are not of the opposite sex. To demand the inclusion of "same sex marriage" in the Marriage article is pushing a political and social agenda, is the destruction of language, and an attempt to push a POV that is already evident in the Same-sex marriage article. As a compromise, I will agree to the inclusion of a section about "Redefinition of Marriage" where references to "same-sex marriage" can exist, subordinate to the intent of the article. I will not agree to any "consensus": a group of editors could reach a consensus that eating pork is kosher, though it remains treif. The editors may think they are correct because they have reached a consensus - and they would be wrong nonetheless. Destroying language and the definition of marriage is not acceptable under any circumstances. "

63.229.192.53 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As always, I provided a direct link to your full statement.[57] There's no "context" to this except more abuse, but feel free to insist that everyone read everything you ever wrote. — coelacan talk — 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment, however, does not address your use of selective quotations to distort the intent of the author, nor of the continuing existence of the attack against Judaism on your userspace. That is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. 63.228.44.65 00:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll just repeat what I wrote 2 weeks ago:

Absolutely, 100% endorse the block as someone who attempted to engage in discourse with him/her the first time around. Clear POV pusher who would edit war and POV fork his/her way to getting his definitions of marriage in, believing them to be immutable truth, and, as above, refusing to accept any contrary consensus.

As an aside, could someone explain why this blocked user is being allowed to evade his/her block and post here? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Bbatsell, perhaps it's because none of use here have those shiny buttons you have at your disposal. Wanna show us how to use them????? Jeffpw 00:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:P I thought I saw some admins up above, but I guess they chimed in awhile back. Blocked. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Per the above discussion and past threads regarding this matter, Nkras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is henceforth banned from editing Wikipedia by the community. All edits made by Nkras and/or his sockpuppets may be reverted and such IPs and accounts may be blocked per WP:BAN. I know not of how these circumstances came to place, so could someone be kind and write up an entry in WP:BU for Nkras? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added an entry for him. Others may wish to double check it and see if it needs fine-tuning but I think it covers the relevant details. WjBscribe 00:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now been threatened with legal action per my institution of this ban. As this is only my second time instituting a community ban, I may need some guidance regarding this matter. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I have less knowledge of Community bans than you do. But I am a lawyer. I can't see how your community ban can possibly lead to any legal action in any court. For starters what loss has this person suffered? And how can there be defamation when his real name is not known- defamation of a username?

In any event, you were required to judge concensus not make your own decision (or finding of fact as claimed). The fact that you were not aware of the details of the original dispute (and were therefore impartial) makes you a good choice to determine the concensus of this discussion not a bad one.

Oh, and someone should block that IP address for making a legal threat. WjBscribe 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked for legal threats to me and User:Rbj. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

On Rbj's page, but the threat was against you and me.[58] — coelacan talk — 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever. He says he's calling his lawyer right now. Can anyone imagine Nkras being laughed off the phone? Apparently, he's suing on the basis that he was "falsely" accused of being a sockpuppeteer. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Lets get this right: The sockpuppets are threatening to take legal action because the sockpuppeteer is being called a sockpuppeteer!?!? WjBscribe 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Often, irony impales the intractable. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, no legal case has ever succeeded (or even gone past the laugh-out-of-court stage) for someone being banned from any website. Private websites can effectively declare that anyone for any reason is not welcome, and certainly nothing you've said here would come anywhere close to defamation or slander. It's just Nkras blowing more wind. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

you guys are a curious bunch. i cannot tell if you want to be taken seriously or are acting as some totally self-absorbed caricature of someone who desparately needs to be taken seriously. Nkras can't hurt you or any of us. i have no idea (other than what i read on my talkpage or on Talk:Marriage) what Nkras has said (or typed) to anyone. all's i know is that there is a widespread over-representation of the LGBT POV on the Marriage article in such a way that no other special interest group i know of enjoys on Wikipedia. the neutral POV that Wikipedia is supposed to offer is simply not happening at Marriage. i am not either pro-LGBT nor anti-LGBT but it's obvious that Marriage is being subjected to a pro-gay litmus test for approval. the article represents an inclusive POV that the pro-same-sex marriage folks would like. but reality in the world is largely not pro-SSM. excluding 6 countries, the world is downright anti-SSM and have clearly expressed that in a variety of manners from nasty executions of gay teens to voter referendums agaisnt SSM. now it may very well be that Nkras is anti-gay or pro-hetero-marriage and he is personally offended by the fact that the Wikipedia article is so blatently skewed (as evidenced by the inclusionary and grossly undue weight given to SSM). i am not personally offended by that per se, but i am offended by any interest group who thinks they can come and define a concept in Wikipedia to one of their liking even though three major dictionaries of the English language do not. it's like if the Christian Right got to define Islam as inclusive of killers, etc. i do not think that Muslims would take kindly to that and if such a page were on my watchlist i would react to that even though i am not anti-Christian.

after Nkras (or whoever the anon IP is, i have no idea) has lost interest and moved on, someone else will come by and be offended by the blatent pro-SSM skew (resulting in ridiculous, tortured and "politically correct" language) in the article.

if you guys start hyping this up to get me banned (for doing nothing but saying what i know to be true on one hand and saying what i believe to be true on the other), then you guys are all fucked up. you just cannot smell that your own shit stinks. you expect the rest of us to like it and we don't. one way or another this will find its way to WP:ArbCom because there is an important principle at stake here. the article will never find peace until the pro-SSM people realize they may not use Wikipedia as a soapbox to advance their political and social goals. r b-j 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the content of the current article, then it's your responsibility to take your concerns up to the relevant talk page and try to establish consensus for your edits. It's not our problem, and it definitely is not of our concern. Nkras was banned for exhausting the community's patience in numerous areas, not for his ideology, contrary to what some may assert. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"all's i know is that there is a widespread over-representation of the LGBT POV on the Marriage article in such a way that no other special interest group i know of enjoys on Wikipedia." Right, because all religious articles on Wikipedia are never dominated by people of that religion. Get real. I mean, you are right, Marriage is subject to a ridiculously politically correct and "inclusive" POV, but the massive irony is that the POV pushers on that page are not in WP:LGBT, they think by putting that stupidly long winded definitions in they are being gay-friendly, even though all of the editors (with the exception of Joie de vivre} from WP:LGBT were against it. But what to do? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ban this troublemaker. Wikipeida is not the place to fix problems you perceive in the outside world. He has consistently failed to understand that. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• I don't know that I've been dealing with this issue long enough to have a strong opinion, but I do feel comfortable certifying that this user has been acting very disruptively, and currently shows no signs of stopping or reconsidering. I tried to be helpful and point out means by which he/she might be able to find help or achieve consensus via discussion with uninvolved (in their mind, I hoped, unbiased) editors, but they seem to be of the opinion that they're a one-person crusader for all sacred truth and justice on the wiki, and that nobody can stop them or get in their way -- that's disruptive, to be sure. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• In my opinion, this proposal has enough support that it's de facto in place. And yes, I absolutely support it. Nkras has no interest in encyclopedia-building, merely in pushing a point of view on a single issue; in fact, he seems to have no problem causing a lot of purposeful disruption in pursuit of that goal, and has never shown an interest in conforming to Wikipedia expectations of his behavior. Mangojuice^talk 01:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Community action review on Ludvikus

Ludvikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user with whom I have no previous experience, was recently blocked for six months for persistent disruptive editing on Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He then issued repeated unblock requests. Upon declining what was at least the third one, I protected his talk page for the duration of his block. In consequence, I received an e-mail which I am reproducing below as an appeal to the community against administrative sanctions.

1. I'm not aware of any rule against a 2nd unblock request concerning a denial.

2. Blocking my Talk page because I made such 2nd request is rather harsh.

3. 6 months is rather harsh.

4. Can you unblock my talk page?

5. I only have a problem with the Philosophy page - why am I not blocked from it only?

Yours truly, Ludvikus

I request a previously uninvolved admin to implement any of the requested relief if there is community consensus to do so. I have no opinion on the original six month block, but it appears to have the consensus of several administrators. As regards no. 1 and 2, I'll just note that the {{unblock denied}} template says: "Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request." – I have mentioned this discussion on Talk:Philosophy. Sandstein 06:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything wrong, Sandstein. For the benefit of others, here, here and here are the discussions surrounding the block. And this is a good explanatory page that includes evidence. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that in the second of those I mentioned that this particular editor's actions, including vague legal threats and mentions of "fisticuffs" (sic), were textbook examples of disruption. To which Ludvikus apparently thought posting my 'join date' was an appropriate response. In short, this editor in essence ducked the banhammer because of the actions of an intervening admin trying a softer approach. That the intervention failed and subsequent actions warranted a long ban is probably not surprising. But after all is said and done that long ban is more than justified, and were I in his shoes I probably wouldn't bring attention to how lightly I 'got off'. Then again, I do not think that Ludvikus accepts or appreciates the notion that some of his previous actions have been disruptive and unacceptable. Bitnine 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Unlock his user page. Sheesh, does this even need to be an issue??

2) Oppose 6 month ban for "disruption". Waaaaaay too long, and this sounds like an ordinary POV battle. The discussions woohookitty links don't have consensus for this (see right near the top -- Jkelly says "an rfc is the way to go"

If he is so awful, follow the dispute resolution process. That's what the process is there for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.91.28.232 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

I've been following Ludvikus pretty much since the day he showed up. I've had enough unpleasant interaction with him that should his case come before ArbCom, I'd recuse. I haven't paid any attention at all to Philosophy, but in pretty much every other venue he's been steadfast in his unique vision: in other words, unable to work cooperatively. It's a pity, too, because he's a font of useful information and research about certain subjects. I'd dearly love to see him educated rather than banned, but I don't know how to do it myself. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, he's the type of user who doesn't listen to others. In that case, I'm not sure he can be educated. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

From my interactions with him at the Velikoe v malom i antikhrist article, I have my doubts as to whether Ludvikus' command of the English language is good enough for him to quite understand some of the comments we're making. Check that article's history to see the horribly broken English that I cleaned up and also view the article's talk page to see the discussions where he seems to be on a completely different frequency than other editors. Has anyone tried to discuss this with him in his native language? —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, the exposure I've had to user Ludvikus at Philosophy is of an editor who not only is incorrigible to correction, but has bragged about his ability to "bruise the egos" of other editors and defeat them by perseverance. His effect on the editing community has been pernicious. Thus, I believe a 6 month ban would not be too "harsh", but an appropriate step. Richiar 18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A protection of the user's talk page is appropriate after abuse of the unblock review template. That protection need not be of the same length as the block; I'd at least consider going back sometime between a week and a month from now(don't advertise when in advance) and removing that protection. Adequate evidence of contrition and understanding of a need to change his ways might lead us to shorten the block at some date in the future. You are at least the second uninvolved admin to endorse the block, so I don't see anything worth doing at the present time. GRBerry 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on User:Shuppiluliuma

I'm proposing a community ban on

• Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka
• DragutBarbarossa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently sockpuppeteering as
• StamboulioteParExcellence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Shuppiluliuma was blocked repeatedly for personal attacks, uncooperative behaviour, edit-warring, bad image uploads, and block evasion. After a previous indef block on the Shuppiluliuma account and an attempt at block-evasion through the DragutBarbarossa account, he came back with an apology and was given a second chance. He was also allowed to shift accounts to the new DragutBarbarossa. Only three days later he had to be warned for NPA again and was finally blocked by a different admin for 3RR; that block was extended two times (4 days, then 2 weeks) for anon-IP block evasion. Today he has been back with a new block-evasion account, StamboulioteParExcellence. He used that account to re-upload and re-insert some of his images and change the license tags on others. While the licensing changes were possibly made in good faith, they still show a blatant failure to understand Wikipedia image policies.

I have now indef-blocked him on all his accounts and propose to turn that into a formal community ban. It is a pity, because Shuppiluliuma is an enthusiastic editor and reasonably knowledgeable in some domains, but his potential for disruption is just too great.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh sweet mercy. After reading over Shuppiluliuma's talk page, I have to support. It's like every section was a complaint by a different editor... Truly delightful. On a side note... Interesting use of multilingual edit summaries. Reminds me of another banned editor. Grandmasterka 11:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a block history. Support community ban. Obviously has burned through enough chances. Durova^Charge! 20:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

endorse ban per talk page history, and misuse of edit summaries and copyrights. - w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 07:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Community Ban Request on User:Classicjupiter2 and associated sockpuppets

Please consider implementing a community ban on user:Classicjupiter2 and his other sockpuppets. Classicjupiter2 (Keith Wigdor) and his sockpuppets have been causing various disruptions within the Surrealism article, such as edit warring, disruption of vote/consensus, violation of 3RR rule, persistent vandalism, sockpuppetry, etc.

The root cause of these vandalistic antics have to do with the user's efforts to add his own personal website link to the article (www.surrealismnow.com), clearly diverging from the NPOV guidelines. Common consensus gleaned from the surrealism talkpage has indicated that Classicjupiter2's link (Keith Wigdor's link) does not belong in the article. Therefore, Classicjupiter2 has been creating sockpuppets in order to attempt to put his link back in the article, as well as to disrupt the article-editing process. This vandalism might very well be nothing more than an online temper-tantrum, but it is severely disrupting the article-editing process, as a result.

A checkuser analysis was done twice, confirming the sockpuppetry, which you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2. More evidence, including DIFFs, can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Classicjupiter2 . At the moment, a page protection request has been made for the Surrealism article in order to deal with this user's sockpuppet vandalism.--TextureSavant 17:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I see three blocks in this editor's history, only two of which are recent and none of which is very long at all. While I have no problem with bans on block-evading sockpuppets, precedent makes banning premature at this point. Has this editor been directed to mentorship? We generally give people a fair chance to learn the hang of things before we show them the door. Durova^Charge! 18:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This editor, Classicjupiter2, has been involved in edit wars, vandalism and other disruptions to the surrealism page for the past 2 years or so. You should take a look at the long list of recent sockpuppets, viewable from a link I posted above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2 . Apparently he knows what he's doing.--TextureSavant 19:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. He has sock puppets, but you haven't provided evidence for any of the other behaviors ("temper tantrum", etc). Use wikipedia's dispute resolution process, it works quite well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.28.232 (talk • contribs)

Accusations require evidence. We don't ban people just because they have sockpuppets - that's all you've proven. Please don't waste time by repeating a link you already provided in the opening post. If you build a logical and well-substantiated case to prove that this editor has disrupted the project for two years, that would be a different matter, but the onus is upon the accuser. See User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc for how I demonstrated an actual instance of long term abuse. Durova^Charge! 20:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The Surrealism article did go through some mediation through the mediation cabal, but the mediator closed the case because of sockpuppet interference. It's difficult to go through DR if one of the parties won't participate in good faith. I don't know if a ban is the answer here, but at the very least the situation seems to warrant closer inspection by an administrator; even at this point Classicjupiter2's latest sockpuppets have been proven through Checkuser, but not blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If the socks are proven and are interfering with things, the socks should be banned and the user given a short term block. If this is serious enough, go to arbcom, but don't come here without any evidence trying to get the editor removed from the project altogether. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.91.28.232 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not referring this editor to more DR - I'm asking them to build a point by point case to back up the allegations. It's very easy to throw around unsubstantiated claims. The challenge is to connect the dots with evidence. If that's done here then there might be an actual case for community banning. But WP:AGF requires us to assume that every editor is reformable until proven otherwise. Durova^Charge! 23:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This personal attack doesn't reflect too well on Classicjupiter2. It's also further disruption of the mediation. It's repeated on a the talk page of User:Plattopus. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Has this user been RfC'd or anything else in regards to the dispute resolution process? Of course, this user has sockpuppets. In regards to them, they should be blocked but there's nothing which says that he has exhasted the community's patience. As in consistent admin action, or a large amount of users complaining. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 07:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment One example of a valid community ban due to sockpuppetry would be that of User:PoolGuy, see his talk page for reasons.--w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 08:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

TextureSavant is seeking assistance from the Association of Members' Advocates; the case is Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/TextureSavant‎. I propose that we close this discussion since further DR is being pursued. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support closure of this discussion. I'd consider a community ban in some future discussion if the serious allegations here get verified through better evidence. Durova^Charge! 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI on apparent new religious schism

It appears to me, based on recent edits, that the Christian denomination The Church of God (Charleston, Tennessee) has split in two, with adherents of both components professing themselves to be the one true "The Church of God" (not to be confused with "Church of God"). This creates problems not only in splitting the article, but also in disambiguating, since there is a tradition of telling the Churches of God apart based on the city where they are headquartered, and both surviving components of TCOG apparently are maintaining international headquarters in Cleveland, Tennessee, which is already the headquarters of Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) (plus a couple of other similarly named churches). If anyone has expertise, interest, and/or experience in dealing with this kind of situation, your oversight is needed... --orlady 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Do they have anything that they use to self-identify themselves uniquely? In other words, if one of them calls me and says, "this is the Church of God" and I ask, "which one", what would they say? --BigDT 05:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

All I know is what I read on websites. I suspect both would answer the phone "The Church of God." The anonymous user who edited the The Church of God (Charleston, Tennessee) a few hours ago (and, among other things, changed the external links from one branch to another) described the link to http://www.thechurchofgod.kk5.org/ as "The Church of God over which James C. Nabors is General Overseer (Cleveland, Tennessee)". (The other branch's website is http://www.thechurchofgod.org/ .)--orlady 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously the ones that control the DNS entry are the "real" Church. The others should have grabbed churchofgod.net if they wanted to have a fighting chance. I know where I'll be tithing this year. — coelacan talk — 09:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we supposed to be checking this page periodically?

Gordon told me about the ban discussion going on here. How would one normally find out about it? Martin | talk • contribs 06:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're under discussion, here, I should hope you'd either know or quickly be informed. :p Unless you were asking whether you need to check this page to have a "full career" as a "proper" Wikipedian -- for that, my answer would be absolutely not. Anybody is welcome to watch and comment, if they're interested, but it is by no means a requirement. It's similar to the village pump, in that regard -- you never even really need to look at it, but sooner or later a lot of the people who stick around awhile get to glance at it now and then. Entirely your call, in my mind; the community has room for contributors in all sorts of areas. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend glancing at this page just like you would AN or AN/I. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are under discussion here and are not informed, I would say that the discussion is invalid. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 16:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

He's actaully referring to the Gordon Watts situation above. The best way would be to add this page to your watchlist.--Isotope23 16:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it necessarily invalidates a discussion, but it sure shows a lack of good-faith if you don't inform someone your having a "community" discussion about them. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User abusing marking edits as minor?

User:Darkson has been making quite a number of major edits, removing text, inserting new text, etc. to many articles while marking his edits as minor. What is the best way to deal with this? Shrumster 21:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The first step would be to raise your concern directly with him. I don't see any comments on his talk page; have you pointed out the issue to him anywhere else? Newyorkbrad 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, then if it's serious abuse and it continues after discussion WP:ANI would be the board where you'd report the problem. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 21:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan related categories

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion
  • #Category:Airlines of Kurdistan and Sub-category Airlines of Iraqi Kurdistan (deleted)
  • #Category:Settlements in Kurdistan (being discussed)
  • #Category:Current governments in Kurdistan (deleted)

I believe the categories fail to meet a set of conventions in a nutshell. Comments? --Cat out 21:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm being dense, but what does, "a set of conventions in a nutshell" mean? —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 02:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As I explained in the linked debate, the current categorization schemes we use on Wikipedia always focuses on political borders. Weather it is a country or a province or some other political sub-division of defined borders. Kurdistan supposed to be a mere geographic region like Europe or Middle East yet we categorize it in a manner parallel to how we categorize countries. See: #Category:Settlements in Kurdistan

Another important convention (WP:NOR, WP:V) is also an issue. This map of Kurdistan has its set of borders, Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters' map of Kurdistan has a different set of borders. The point is there is no agreement on what the borders are supposed to be.

--Cat out 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar

This arbitration case has closed and the decision is available at the link above. WLU (talk · contribs) and Mystar (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with each other or commenting on each other, directly or indirectly, on any Wikipedia page, and may be blocked for up to one week for each violation. For the purpose of this remedy, any edit by either WLU or Mystar to one of the articles over which they had previously been in conflict (including, but not limited to, Terry Goodkind and Lupus Erythematosus) shall be considered an interaction with the other party. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)