Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Tag team editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy

• Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David.Kane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120 Volt monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Distributivejustice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Varoon Arya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These editors are attempting to use autobiographical writings by one of the main subjects of this article, Arthur Jensen, to write a severly biased version of a period in the 1970s. This is well recorded in secondary sources, which are published mostly by university presses. Captain Occam has given spurious reasons for removing material by Adrian Wooldridge, because it is 4 pages long and therefore too short. The views of these editors favour a minoritarian point of view and contradict what most historians of psychology, eg Franz Samelson, have written about Jensen's varying point of view over the years. Please could adminitsrators step in to sort out this tag-teaming and disruption on what was a neutral article. Captain Occam , by editng as part of a team, is attempting to impose a heavily biased and unacceptable version by force of numbers, in this case several WP:SPAs. I did suggest that they could write a separate section Jensen on "Jensenism" to include these autobiographical views, provided it was clearly labelled as such and separate from the history written relying on solid secondary sources and not written by the subject of the history himself. Captain Occam's finger was fast on the revert button. Note that he has been blocked three times before for revert warring on Race and intelligence. I would also note that the point of view of the tag-team on the sources seems similar to that of a review in The Occidental Quarterly. This looks like very agressive POV-pushing based on numbers, rather than arguments based on the readings of WP:RS. Possibly Captain Occam should be blocked. My temporary wifi link will unfortunately not permit me either to inform the above editors or to respond in the near future, Apologies about that. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Arbitration. The dispute is not being resolved, positions are increasingly entrenched. No way of untangling it here, I think. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think I should point out that Mathsci has another currently open AN/I complaint about this same issue here. The linked thread is a request that I be banned for tag-team editing on the same article about which he's making his current accusations. Aren't we supposed to avoid multiple simultaneous AN/I threads about the same issue? At the very least what Mathsci is doing here is forum shopping, and having two simultaneously open AN/I complaints about the same issue might be a violation of other policies also. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps "forum flooding". --120 Volt monkey (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• MathSci claims that books written by Jensen may not be used in an article that mentions Jensen. He claims that this is Wikipedia policy but fails to specifically cite any such wording. If writings by Ghandi may be used in the article about Ghandi, then writings by Jensen may be used in an article that mentions Jensen. (They do not have to be used and we need to evaluate them in the context of other sources.) Or am I missing something? David.Kane (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• History of the race and intelligence controversy is not about Jensen, it's about the history of the race and intelligence controversy. Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, obviously. The issue: Is there a general Wikipedia policy against using work written by person X in an article that touches on person X? MathSci asserts that there is, that in the paragraph or two in this article which discusses Jensen, we may not use work written by Jensen. But there is no such policy. MathSci is just making things up, hoping to bully people into getting his way. Could an experienced administrator at least tell us if there is anything wrong with the article on Ghandi using Ghandi's autobiography as a source? David.Kane (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Those sources are primary, so using them must be consistent with WP:PSTS. One could also argue that such sources are not WP:Reliable Sources, and that using them excessively is providing WP:UNDUE weighting to a particular POV, thus running afoul of WP:NPOV. Abductive (reasoning) 17:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that all the (attempted) uses of Jensen's work has been consistent with WP:PSTS. And MathSci has not, to my knowledge, asserted otherwise. He simply claims that any use of work by Jensen is unacceptable in this article because they were written by Jensen. That is complaints about WP:UNDUE are secondary. David.Kane (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I second the vote for arbitration. Or at the very least mediation. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Mediation already failed as the mediator lost buy-in from one of the parties and then, as opposed to reengaging the party by determining their problems and adressing them, instead barrelled through mediation without that parties input. Hipocrite (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Around two weeks ago, we finished a five-month-long mediation case for the main Race and intelligence article, which also covered the way we’d be describing this controversy’s history. Our mediator was user:Ludwigs2. Mathsci refused to participate in the mediation for most of the time that it was underway, despite multiple attempts from Ludwigs2 to engage him in it, instead posting multiple AN/I threads trying to get Ludwig banned for allegedly mishandling the mediation case. Mathsci also refused to accept the outcome we agreed on during mediation after the mediation case was finished, which is what’s causing the current conflict. Since he voluntarily excluded himself from the first mediation case and refused to accept its results, I don’t think a second mediation case is likely to solve this. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Then off to the arbitration committee! If it's been going on for that long and it's still not going away I can't see any other way to solve it. Unless Mathsci was willing to engage in some sort of talks with other editors. I'd like to see some evidence from them for the accusations of sock puppetry too, because if that is happening, that should be addressed. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn’t seem like arbitration should be necessary here. Of the seven users who are involved in the Race and intelligence history article, six of us are able to work together without any problems. (These are the six users about whom Mathsci is filing his complaint here—his complaint is against every user other than himself who’s involved in this article.) The only user involved in the article who hasn’t been able to work cooperatively on it is Mathsci. When the consensus of other users disagrees with him, rather than accepting what consensus has determined, he either edit wars over it or files complaints about it at AN/I like this one. Is it really appropriate to start an ArbCom case because of a single user who’s unwilling to accept consensus? --Captain Occam (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a democracy - and for that, you should count your lucky stars. If we did a quickpoll with only "topic ban MathSci" or "topic ban Captain Occam" as the only choices, I will personally guaranty that you would be banned from this topic. The same with every other name on the list of 7. If you care to dispute this, then I suspect that we could, in fact, host said quickpoll with your agreement. Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We already have hosted a poll about this, when Mathsci tried to get me topic banned two weeks ago in the thread I linked to. Of the 15 or so people who voted in the poll, around five supported a topic ban for me, and the other ten opposed it. (We didn't vote on this in Mathsci's case.)

In any case, when I say that Mathsci has been refusing to accept consensus, I'm not just referring to what the majority opinion is. I'm also referring to the fact that when other users have addressed the arguments Mathsci was making for his preferred version of the article, Mathsci has only ever done one of three things in response: ignored us altogether (as he has towards the end of this thread and this one), made the exact same claims he's made before without addressing any of the earlier responses (as he has in this thread), or answered our rebuttals with snide comments or threats that have nothing to do with the arguments being made (as in this comment and this one). The real reason why consensus opposes Mathsci about this article isn't because the ratio of opinions is six to one (although that fact still makes some amount of difference)--it's because Mathsci apparently has very little interest in trying to justify the changes he wants to make. Not only does every other user involved in the article disagree with him about this; he also consistently evades our efforts to discuss it with him. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you and your hordes of POV-pushing SPAs is not refusing to accept consensus, it's you refusing to accept that you and your hordes of POV-pusing SPAs have driven off all of the legitmate editors. Hipocrite (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I support arbitration. This needs to be dealt with sooner than later. Auntie E. (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I also support Arbitration, but then a process that looks also beyond the issues specific to this case. So, instead of just looking at editor conduct here and perhaps imposing topic bans, it is high time that it is recognized that there exist a class of topics like this, where you can just wait until editors with an agenda arrive who will edit in a tendentious way, interpeting RS in a way that suits them etc. etc.

Clearly what would help is if the policies are rewritten so that NPOV becomes SPOV. Not that we don't want NPOV, but rather that achieving NPOV is best done by sticking to SPOV. Now, there is no consensus to modify the wiki-policies in this direction. But then that's why we have an ArbCom. ArbCom can impose new policies for the benefit of Wikipedia, regardless of consensus. Count Iblis (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I request that my name be removed from the above list, as the complaint is in regards to editors allegedly "attempting to use autobiographical writings by one of the main subjects of this article, Arthur Jensen, to write a severly biased version of a period in the 1970s", which simply does not apply to me. My only involvement in this issue - which spanned all of two comments on the talkpage - was a suggestion to consider the use of a secondary source on the topic of Jensenism which was not written by Jensen. Other than that, I've decided to leave this article alone, and have done for some time now, as Mathsci's antics literally turn my stomach. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, crap. I’d been wondering whether Mathsci’s behavior was the reason why you’ve mostly stopped contributing to Wikipedia, and it looks like my suspicion was right.

I consider you to be the most neutral and talented editor we’ve had involved in these articles in at least a year, so it bothers me a lot to see Mathsci driving you off the way he’s apparently doing. Is there no way you’ll be willing to resume participating in these articles as long as his behavior doesn’t change? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Aryaman neutral, lol. Maybe an uncivil civil POV pusher. The analogy he left on Occam's page and many others clearly demonstrate a POV. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Have any of Varoon Arya’s actual contributions demonstrated non-compliance with NPOV policy? During the time since he became involved in race-related articles last fall, my observation has been that he’s adhered to NPOV policy pretty strictly. If you disagree, I’d like to see diffs to support your claim about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So you admit that Aryaman has a POV but that his actual contributions comply with NPOV. The difference between civil POV pushers and regular POV pushers is that civil POV pushers understand wikipedia's policies well, and are thus able to avoid any blatant violations of policy. Despite the lack of blatant violations, CPPs may violate the spirit of wikipedia by cleverly advocating certain POVs. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thought crime already. mikemikev (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, everybody has a point of view, including you. The only thing that matters at Wikipedia is whether we can avoid introducing our personal biases into articles when we edit them. If Varoon Arya is able to do this—and you seem to be admitting that he is—then he hasn’t done anything wrong.

The same goes for everyone else who’s a subject of Mathsci’s complaint here. This thread is really just a content dispute, although it’s being presented as a complaint about user conduct, so the only actual conduct issue on our part is the fact that a few of you disagree with us. That’s why none of the users making these accusations against us are able to provide any diffs of objectionable conduct on our part, although I’ve been able to provide diffs and links that demonstrate stonewalling from Mathsci. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is entitled to have a point of view, and we all do. You are correct about introducing personal biases into articles. If Aryaman's edits were completely neutral, then many editors wouldn't have a problem with them. Other editors have complained about an atmosphere of resentment, undercurrents of hostility etc. regarding some race related topics. This demonstrates that some editors' POVs are spilling over into their edits. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

“Other editors have complained about an atmosphere of resentment, undercurrents of hostility etc. regarding some race related topics. This demonstrates that some editors' POVs are spilling over into their edits.”

I don’t think this is VA’s fault, or mine. If you read the talk page for the R & I history article, you’ll see that Mathsci is the one who keeps threatening other editors with bans or blocks when we disagree with him, and he’s obviously also the person who keeps complaining here at AN/I whenever he doesn’t get his way. The only example of something comparable to this from a user other than Mathsci is Mikemikev’s suggestion of starting an RFC/U about Mathsci, which was directly in response to Mathsci having continuously engaged in this antagonistic behavior for several weeks.

As I pointed out in the diffs and links above, Mathsci is also the one who’s either unwilling or unable to justify his opinion based on any policies here. When he responds to the rest of us at all, it’s either with name-calling and threats, or by repeating himself in an endless loop without acknowledging any of the earlier responses to his points. Even if you disagree with the changes we’ve been making to the article in terms of content, I don’t think you can argue with the fact that nobody has raised any coherent objections to them, least of all Mathsci. Unless you’re going to suggest that we ought to submit to him just because of how much noise he’s been making, or out of fear because of his threats, there’s nothing that the rest of us could be doing differently in order to avoid this problem. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know what the Jensen issue is that Mathsci is referring to. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I was involved in the mediation, so I am not an independent voice. But when ArbCom was created, it was specifically to deal with personal behavior violations and conflicts. I know its brief has been expanding a bit but we Wikipedians should resist that. For a long time I have argued that we need a separate panel or multiple panels (e.g. of experts) to mediate content disputes. This is really a content dispute and should not be handled by ArbCom (although i agree that mediation did not resolve all issues in a years-long problem article). If this does not provoke the community into creating a separate mechanism for dealing with content disputes, then I suggest some kind of task-force. Wasn't this how ethnic-conflict e.g. Israel-Palestine conflicts were handled? The core issue here of course is race and racism so I think it is analogous. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Request Could an uninvolved editor please move this thread to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Slrubenstein and leave a pointer here? Or if nobody objects, I'll do it. I'm not involved in the content dispute but I posted some outside commments to the earlier thread. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A task force specifically for these types of articles seems like a great idea. I think this situation blurs the line a little between content disputes and behaviour conflicts, so it might be appropriate to send it to ArbCom. But something tailored to the specific situation would be a lot better. Who would be willing to sit in on that though? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why are we all "voting" on whether to take this to mediation or arbitration? If there's a conduct problem, present diffs illustrating the disruptive actions and myself or another administrator will slam a block on the guilty parties. AGK 01:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(This comment by AGK went missing, pesumably after a wrongly corrected edit conflict by someone. It should be checked if more comments are missing elsewhere on this AN/I page. Count Iblis (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) )

AGK: This case is far too subtle for that approach because there have been lots of researchers interested in race and intelligence, so a POV editor can find plenty of material to support their POV, and can keep pushing until all related articles "prove" their point. As far as I can tell, Mathsci is one of the few remaining editors who is attempting to keep a neutral portrayal of the science. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps of only partial interest to this thread, but of considerable relevance to the actual issue of contention -- this is about history, not science. The NPOV issue surrounds the description of the motivations of various scholars 30+ years ago, but not their science per se. The science content is in the race and intelligence article, which is not at issue. --DJ (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

-> The Race and intelligence article has the problem that a number of largely single-purpose editors are trying to write the science themselves from primary sources. Not very much can be done about that as far as I can tell. But when it comes to history, they are now trying to play exactly the same game on the recently created History of the race and intelligence controversy. They want to write the history themselves using primary sources. They seem obsessive about their chosen subject and mostly edit very little else on wikipedia. So of course the game is to brush aside reliable secondary sources - in this case 4 pages from an account by Adrian Wooldridge, who is certainly not a Marxist historian (he lunches with conservative grandees and is Management Editor of The Economist) - and replace it with autobiographical statements by the person, Arthur Jensen, about whom the history is being written. They then spend time comparing that person to Gandhi and Winston Churchill. In this case, a fairer comparison would be to Enoch Powell, who sparked similar controversy to Jensen and produced copious amounts of primary autobiographical material, none of which is used directly in his wikipedia article. Fortunately, now that this has been reported here, several more widely experienced editors are now participating in the article and restoring some sense of normality to editing. If administrators want to look at the kind of edits I make, they can look at the carefully sourced material I added this morning [1] on Cyril Burt and the newly created biography of Otto Klineberg, a social psychologist whose career followed a slightly different path from that of Arthur Jensen. Or then again, they can look at Handel concerti grossi Op.6 or Christopher Jencks. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The comparison to the bio of Enoch Powell is close, but not quite analogous. A better comparison would be to Powellism, the discussion of the controversial ideas and views attributed to Powell. That article quotes him extensively, and includes quotes taken from both primary (written by Powell himself) as well as secondary sources. I don't think the editors involved here are requesting anything other than balancing what secondary sources attribute to Jensen with what Jensen himself has said. In light of NPOV, this would seem imperative, particularly given the fact that Jensen himself has noted on several occasions that his views are more often than not misrepresented in such secondary sources.

And, for the second time, I request that my name be removed from this list. I do not plan on participating in this any further. --Aryaman (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

<- Unfortunately in the case of Jensen, it is well documented that he kept changing his mind on various issues, eg the "Burt affair". In the early 1970s Jensen was one of the stauchest defenders of Burt. In 1983 he accepted that Burt's results were probably fabricated. In 1992 he reversed his decision. Plenty of neutral secondary sources give long quotations from Jensen - they are easy to find. I'm not sure what exactly is needed. Certainly no long presentations of the "science" in his paper or his replies to criticisms 30 years later. Anyway, now that Captain Occam has spuriously removed any summary of what Jensen's critics wrote (as reported by Adrian Wooldridge), it seems even less relevant to include any material directly by Jensen. By favouring Jensen over his critics, that would appear to be a move by you and the others to skew the reporting of the history in favour of the hereditarian viewpoint. That doesn't seem very neutral to me and I haven't seen it done in any of the sources. Wooldridge carefully summarises what both Jensen and his critics said. Mathsci (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Aryman - I've redacted your name from the list, unilaterally. If mathsci wants to raise a stink about it, he can bring it up at ANI - LMFAO --Ludwigs2 19:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"LMFAO" - So, you find this funny in some way? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

proposed topic ban for Mathsci

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

---

I think it's time to raise the issue of a topic ban for Mathsci, much as I hate to suggest it. Mathsci has gotten so lost in his own personal perspective on this topic that he is no longer responding to reason or trying to edit cooperatively at all - he's simply engaging in procedural warfare against a half-dozen editors (starting or hijacking multiple ANI threads to pursue it), without even a minimal assumption of good faith for anyone. a short enforced break from any page related to the topic (two months or so) should give him an opportunity to regain some perspective.

and Hipocrite, save your breath - threatening me isn't going to do you any good, and you've never given me a reason to give a shit about what you think. --Ludwigs2 19:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Mathsci is not the problem here. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you sure about that? I think Mathsci is a fairly decent editor, all things considered, but in this case we are talking about a lot of ANI time he's monopolized trying to get people banned, blocked or otherwise in trouble. Further, his behavior on the articles and in article talk has been outrageous: He threatens people, reverts without credible explanation, indulges in name-calling and personal insults, demands that people accept his edits because he's a more experienced editor, and otherwise acts like a spoiled child. Don't believe half the hype he's been spouting here - I don't personally agree with Occam's or Mikemikev's perspective, but I can reason with them and start creating a balanced outcome. Mathsci simply refuses to listen to anything that he thinks is wrong, and starts ANI proceedings if anyone contradicts him. In my view he is the main and biggest obstacle to creating a balanced article, because he is (as far as I can see) hell bent on making sure that no other perspective save the one he believes in is represented in the article. Can honestly read through the respctive talk pages and ANI threads and tell me that you think Mathsci is behaving like a calm, rational adult? If so, then please do so, so we can get down to a detail by detail analysis of his silliness. I'd appreciate you explaining his behavior to me. This isn't about choosing sides, this is about creating a workable editing environment. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Ludwig, it might be helpful if you were to provide diffs of some of Mathsci’s more problematic behavior. I suspect that you’ve been paying closer attention to it than the rest of us have, especially during the mediation case. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I will if anyone asks. If things are true to previous form, the first 8 or so responses will be (mostly) from people who would oppose a topic ban even if Mathsci physically threatened to kill you, on the grounds that that would somehow be your fault. Give it a day or two and some more level heads will weigh in. I doubt it will happen this time, but I will raise the issue again in each of the subsequent ANI threads that Mathsci starts or hijacks, and I figure somewhere around the fourth or fifth time (because you know there will be at least that many more ANI threads) even his die-hard supporters will will be developing some serious cognitive dissonance about him. I'm patient... --Ludwigs2 20:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, I’m asking. I do think that Mathsci’s behavior in these articles warrants a topical ban, but I also don’t think you’re going to be able to convince anyone of this without providing specific evidence. With the exception of Slrubenstein, everyone who’s commented “oppose” thus far doesn’t have any firsthand experience with Mathsci in these articles, and as a result probably doesn’t believe either of us that he’s been doing all of the things that we’ve observed from him. Providing diffs is the way to solve that problem. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If there are candidates for topic ban, I would start looking at SPAs. Mathsci is definitely not that. He is an editor who generally works on articles in which he has genuine expertise, and where his knowledge is lacking it is clear he knows how to do real research, even if it involves physically walking to a library. He has demonstrated this at scores of other articles and his contribution to R&I is consistent with his contributions elsewhere. He is also clear about core content policy. I sometimes find his editing too aggressive but he same is true about me and th majority of wikipedians, and all of us know we sometimes need Wikibreaks, and I have seen mathsci take one periodically on his own accord. This - realistically speaking - is precisely the kind of editor we need more of, and should not be discouraging. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Mathsci is definitely not the problem here, I came out of retirement to say so. Justin talk 20:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think either "side" is behaving well under our policies, but Mathsci isn't causing the situation here and is not the worst offender. No. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I am aware my mainspace editing is without blemish, on a broad base of academic articles in the arts and sciences.
• By his silence on the matter, Ludwigs2 seems to be supporting a whole series of WP:SPAs. This is completely in line with his previous attempts to skew wikipedia editing policy to favour unduly representing minority views on fringe topics. His emotional and highly charged statements about me are no different from those of Abd (talk · contribs): they do not reflect my editing patterns in any way and are simply out-and-out personal attacks on an academic mainstream editor, unsupportable by diffs.
• Captain Occam is continuing slowly to push for inappropriate primary sources to be used by asking the same question over and over again here: Talk:History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy#Primary sources - Jensen justifying himself 30 years after the event. These continued questions appear to have degenerated to trolling, Persumably when I tire of responding, this will give him the green light to reinsert material that several other editors have already removed. Isn't this just a slow version of edit warring on his part? I have no point of view to push in any of this, even if Captain Occam obviously has. Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Mathsci, please leave me out of your mudslinging. How can I support anything through silence? Frankly, I've been avoiding the page(s) because you are being such an inveterate ass it give me a headache dealing with you. I have better ways to spend my time at the moment than watching you run around shouting "Off With Their Heads!" like the frigging Queen of Hearts. --Ludwigs2 22:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Ahem. you wrote above: "if Mathsci physically threatened to kill you". Please could you explain to administrators what that kind of phrase was supposed to convey. Please could you also explain what anything you have written here has to do with me insisting on secondary sources for the history of a controversial event. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • It meant that there are a number of people who would willingly defend you well past the point of common sense. You command a decent amount of well-deserved respect, Mathsci, but you often receive respect beyond what you deserve, and I think it encourages you in your bad behavior. it's unfortunate that people resort to that kind of thing, and unfortunate that you let it turn your head, but it's not really a major issue. just something to be noticed. As to your second point: I don't have a problem with you insisting on secondary sources. I have a problem with you running your mouth off about how everyone else is a POV-pushing SPA who ought to be banned. I suspect that you're right, content-wise, but you're such an ass about it that you tick everyone else off, and so what could be simple, straight-forward discussions turn into knock-down, drag-out bitch-fests. frankly, if you were topic-banned it would leave me free to go in and make the same arguments you're making now, except nicely, and then the page would make some progress. sorry, but your arrogance gets in the way. --Ludwigs2 00:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I wonder whether you might please stop making these insulting remarks. I also hope that you are not acting on behalf of Captain Occam. [2] Mathsci (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • And I wonder whether you will learn to treat people civilly in your own right. Somehow I suspect the answers to those questions will always be the same... Also, they have some marvelous new therapies available for clinical manifestations of paranoia. How frequently do you have these fears that people are conspiring against you? --Ludwigs2 04:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • You have had a formal warning from an administrator on your talk page. Suggesting now that I have some form of "mental illness" is a personal attack. Please refactor the above immediately and apologize to me on my talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Have I? where did you get that idea? and even if it were true, what business is that of yours anyway? again, you're being arrogant: I can handle handle my relations with other editors without your help, thank you, and I will do a far better job of it than you've managed to do with Occam. You'd best look to cleaning up your own house. --Ludwigs2 05:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
              • You were warned by GWH and shortly afterwards wrote the above PERSONAL ATTACK. Your behaviour here has not been normal. I have privately contacted an administrator. Please redact the insults you have written and stop commenting like this. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
                • • C'mon guys. You're both good contributors. Let's take the rhetoric down a notch.   Will Beback  talk  06:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
                    • [3][4] Hmm, 10 content edits for April, with 2 of those to Goatse.cx. Mathsci (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Slrubinsetin. This is the wrong party to be topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• oppose Mathsci is certainly not more responsible for the content disputes at race and iq related articles than a number of other editors. Topic bans would have to be for all involved editors - SPA's first.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• As someone who has been passively watching the evolution of R&I and related articles for years, I have to agree with the "opposes": Mathsci is definitely not the problem here. Who or what may be the solution to this mess is a wholly different question, and given the history and unsettling attraction of this topic to multiple single purpose accounts, I for one am pessimistic. But to topic-ban Mathsci, as suggested by Ludwigs2, won't help this ill-fated topic one bit. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - If topic bans are needed this isn't the place to start.   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support From what I've gathered Mathsci seems to be repeatedly inserting BLP violating material while attempting to get the consensus group of editors banned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You have not gathered enough, keep gathering. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment None of this bears any relation to reality. Mathsci (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment on previous behaviour. In a another arbitration case Mathsci was reminded "not to edit war — especially not on arbitration pages — and to avoid personal attacks at all times". He was also blocked previously for "harassing other users, making threats". Xxanthippe (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC).

Comment It's a bit stale to mention something that happened two years ago with Elonka (talk · contribs), when I was unblocked almost immediately. Elonka is due to visit me here in France with her father on Monday. It's a sort of French wiki-meetup.Mathsci (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Mathsci is following all appropriate procedures and has a proper understanding of the relevant policies, particularly the use of secondary sources and the need to avoid cherry picking from primary sources. The problem comes from the SPA editors and their misguided supporters. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I suggest that Ludwigs2 find some other articles to spend their time on. Their involvement as mediator helped sink the mediation (due to partisanship), and their input into this thread has merely been disruptive, including swearing, hyperbole, and this proposal to ban a long-time respected editor while enabling the POV-pushing from a series of single-purpose accounts. Fences&Windows 01:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment In the earlier thread where Mathsci asked for a topic ban against Captain Occam, there seemed to be some chance of reaching an agreement where both of them would voluntarily quit the R&I topic. I couldn't support banning Mathsci from it involuntarily, but I wish he would lose interest in it and do something else, even if only because there's much more worthwhile subjects in Wikipedia that could use his help. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I remember - correct me if I'm wrong - I write articles when I feel like it and when I have time. Writing this article was much quicker than most, 3 days as opposed to 4 months for Handel concerti grossi Op.6. However, watching it is a different thing. If you successfully listed it for deletion that might solve that problem :) Of course the main point is not me - it's the tag team and in particular Captain Occam. Ludwigs2 has done his bast to divert attention from that fundamental problem by creating this section. Mathsci (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Mathsci has made some very important contributions to this subject. I think we should be discussing, what is now undisputed, the SPA editing of some users. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Close this section per WP:Waste of Time. Count Iblis (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, did you miss the Humor tag, or forget the smiley?  :) A.Prock (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Mathsci's Mike Tyson-like behavior helps break the monotony of Wikipedia. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose. We need someone with a Marxist POV to provide some balance. But could someone stop him using ANI as his personal Gulag? mikemikev (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Who are you saying has a Marxist POV here? Please could you explain yourself? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can't prove anything. Maybe you just accidentally wrote a history article trashing the reputation of a living scientist and maintained for several weeks that his own words should be kept out of the article (which you still appear to be doing in the face of several administrators). Allow me to refactor that. Maybe you would feel in more familiar territory if I followed up the unsubstantiated allegation with a call to have you blocked? mikemikev (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. mikemikev (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci wrote a quite fine article. Mathsci has not trashed Arthur Jensen's reputation, his reputation has been long in the making - and it would be a crime against WP:NPOV if the article did not expand on the extremely wide array of criticisms that have been levelled against him. It is rather unbecoming to see how you response to being called out on an unsubstantiated personal attack by grasping for the ban hammer. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: while I can see that Mathsci's edits have sometimes been vigourous, and he has on occasion unfortunately resorted to disrespect for his adversaries, his broad contributions are a major indication of the quality of his ideas. It is always disappointing when people here resort to insults, particularly a mediator who should maintain moral authority, but ultimately the content of the encyclopaedia is most important. I still feel that the SPAs should go out and gain wider experience, and slowing down the editing of the article will give time to let some sunlight in and give tempers the opportunity to cool. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Suggestion to Captain Occam et al.

Closed by Georgewilliamherbert (talk) on the grounds that in his judgement this is an inappropriate suggestion as he explains here in more detail.

This article needs a lot of work. Count Iblis (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC) What makes you think I'd want to spend time on trying to improve Conservapedia articles? Hardly anyone reads that site. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC) And why does hardly anyone read Conservapedia? Count Iblis (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Because most people aren't stupid. Not difficult. Next question? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Um, does it matter what the reason is? I was just telling you why I don't think your suggestion would be a good use of my time. That's the case regardless of why so few people read it. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC) It does matter. If the reason is that the articles there are of poor quality, you could improve the articles there. If the reason is that their editing philosophy is different than we have here and readers don't like that, then editing articles here using their editing philosophy isn't a wise thing to do. Count Iblis (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC) I don't even know what their editing philosophy is; I've never cared enough to find out. Is this whole section that you've posted in this thread intended as a backhanded accusation that I've been using Conservapedia's philosophy here? If that's what you're trying to say, then quit beating around the bush with multiple comments, and just say it. And while you're at it, you might want to mention what their editing philosophy actually is, so I'll know what it is exactly that you're accusing me of. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued tag teaming

The team mentioned at the top of this thread have now apparently decided that the following carefully footnoted historical account by Adrian Wooldridge is biased:

• Wooldridge, Adrian (1995), Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England c.1860-c.1990, Cambridge University Press, pp. 363–379, ISBN 0521395151, The revival of psychometric theory in England and America: 1969-1980

And that this 1998 two-page partisan opinion piece

• Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy#JENSEN, JENSENISM, AND THE SOCIOLOGY OF INTELLIGENCE

by Linda Gottfredson at the end of a nine-page tribute article, without footnotes and possibly unrefereed, is balanced. I would assume that most experienced editors or administrators would be able to classify Gottfredson's personal statement as a primary source and that of Wooldridge, an unbiased writer and historian, as a reliable secondary source. Probably the best way to handle this now is through WP:RSN. Mathsci (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A section was opened at WP:RSN#Jensen_1998_writing_about_Jensen_1969 by DJ. Opinion seems to be that keeping the BLP balanced is more important than using the 'most secondary' sources. mikemikev (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

“Opinion seems to be that keeping the BLP balanced is more important than using the 'most secondary' sources.”

The important thing to understand here is that this is also the opinion of every editor involved in the article other than Mathsci. There were six of us who took this position—me, DJ, David.Kane, Mikemikev, 120 Volt Monkey, and Varoon Arya—until Varoon Arya abandoned the article out of disgust and frustration at Mathsci’s behavior, which may soon happen with some of the other editors also. The six of us tried to discuss this with Mathsci for around two weeks, and Mathsci stonewalled the entire time, as I described in more detail in this comment. Since he won’t accept consensus and he won’t engage in meaningful discussion, the only way for us to bring the article into compliance with WP:BLP has been by editing the article over his objections. The reason he now regards us as a “tag team” is because he edit wars against us whenever we try this—I previously reported this here, but the report was rejected because one of Mathsci’s ANI threads about this article was still active—so the only way to bring the article into compliance with BLP has been by having multiple users work together to enforce this policy. As Mathsci drives more and more other editors away from this article, though, complying with BLP becomes more and more difficult.

Any one of the six users whom Mathsci reported here can verify that what I’m saying here is accurate, if the diffs posted in the linked comments aren’t enough to demonstrate this. There’s no end to this problem in sight, and Ludwig’s proposal for a topical ban as a solution obviously wasn’t effective either. Is there anything else that can be done about a user who is repeatedly violating BLP, won’t accept the consensus against this, and edit wars against any effort from other users to comply with this policy? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed how there has been very little support for your position expressed here? You point out how one editor (Mathsci) is interrupting the diligent work of six other editors, and yet people like me effectively say "good job Mathsci". The fundamental problem is that as well as SPA editors there are SPA researchers, and SPA editors can push their views into articles like these. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

“Have you noticed how there has been very little support for your position expressed here?”

And isn’t it obvious what the reason for that is? Look at Varoon Arya’s comments again. This is at least the sixth time in the past two months that Mathsci has come to AN/I about the fact that nobody on the talk pages for these articles agrees with him, framing his content disputes as a user conduct complaint, and most of the users involved in this article are so sick of this by now that they want nothing to do with it anymore. Varoon Arya had no interest in participating in this thread except to ask that his name not be mentioned here, Mikemikev and David.Kane have barely commented, and DJ has refused to participate in this thread except for a single comment. All of Mathsci’s support in this thread has been coming from people like you, who haven’t been watching his behavior on this article, and are probably just judging Mathsci based only on his past contributions.

In order to effectively judge what’s going on here, you need to either directly observe Mathsci’s behavior on this article, or discuss it with other people who have. Mathsci’s past contributions aren’t relevant here, because at this point he’s developed an obsessive interest in this article and his viewpoint about it that surpass those of anyone else involved in it. If you look at the past week of his contributions, you’ll see that he appears to no longer have any interest in articles that aren’t directly related to race and intelligence. And if you look at the history of either the history of the race and intelligence controversy article or its talk page, you can see that for the past two weeks Mathsci has been as active there as all other users combined. Even if he wasn’t an SPA in the past, at this point he is now more of one than anyone else there.

Let me ask again: given what’s going on currently, including the fact that at this point most other editors no longer have the patience to deal with Mathsci’s continuous stonewalling and AN/I complaints about content disputes, is there anything that can be done to bring this article into compliance with BLP? In this situation, does Mathsci get to put whatever he wants about living researchers into the article, by virtue of the fact that he’s in the process of driving away most of the other users away from it, and he has enough of a history of contributions to Wikipedia that nobody else is willing to examine the problems with his current behavior? --Captain Occam (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. After reading this very depressing discussion and the article and talk page that provoked it my conclusion is that the problem arose because Mathsci has been editing outside his area of expertise. Like many amateurs he has become carried away with his enthusiasms and is unable to view the subject with the balanced perspective that an experienced scholar of the field would have developed. It might be helpful to give him another rap over the knuckles to remind him to avoid edit wars, personal attacks and so forth and so forth and so forth. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Everybody on wikipedia, even when editing editing close to their expertise, is an amateur. Suggesting otherwise is contrary to all wikipedia policy. Is she proposing to tag Europe because, with Hemlock Martinis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), I was on eof the main editors to rejig and source the history section? I wish her the very best of luck! The comment above seems like an attempt to settle a personal grudge connected with fringe science. Not having elicited a reply here, Xxanthippe appears now to be disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT by adding {{expert}} to the article without any justification on the talk page. Several very experienced administrators are discussing sourcing and further addition to the article. At no stage has anybody but Xxanthippe questioned my editing skills. Mathsci (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE Slrubenstein has invited several outside editors familiar with wikipedia policies to comment on the talk page of the article. The comments so far have been very helpful. Mathsci (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned that Mathsci’s antagonistic behavior, as well as his issues with Ludwigs2, are now being discussed at WQA: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Ludwigs2.27s_personal_attacks_on_WP:ANI. No progress appears to have been made there thus far, so people who have been following this thread might want to look there also, to see if they can offer any ideas about how to solve this. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Captain Occam in his haste has forgotten to mention that Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by BozMo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for his personal attacks in the archived subthread.

• Captain Occam and his team still seem set on including as many indications as possible on wikipedia that the hereditarian view of race and intelligence - that there is incontrovertible proof that the intelligence of blacks on average is significantly less than that of whites due to inherent genetic features of race. I hope that I am not misreading his statements. Another like-minded member of his team, Distributivejustice, is now claiming that one of the sources - by William H. Tucker, a psychologist and author of a prize-winning book on the history of funding of the hereditarian research - is not a qualified historian and therefore material from his book should be removed from wikipedia. This is fairly typical of the spurious arguments on the talk page from the POV-pushing SPAs. They are attempting slowly to chip away at an article until it can be flooded with commentary from 30 years after the event of Jensen and those close to him, so that the rest of the history becomes swamped and completely unreadable: of course this is against all core wikipedia editing policies. To some extent they have had some success in tiring out neutral editors on Race and intelligence. Many have now abandoned the article. It must be a cause of concern that editors like Captain Occam, Mikemikev and Distributivejustice edit relentlessly only race-related articles and from this very particular point of view, the possible inherent superiority of one population group over another. Mathsci (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• The relationship between what you write and what's actually happening is tenuous to say the least. Here's the diff for my talk page suggestion that Tucker's unattributed POV is an NPOV problem; I explicitly make no suggestions about what to do with it, but my previous attempts at resolution have been to retain Tucker's POV and balance it with the view of the person he is criticizing. The implied attack on my character is offensive and I wish you would retract it. --DJ (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ahem, isn't this your complete editing record? We have no way of analysing Tucker's point of view on wikipedia: his prize-winning book does satisfy WP:RS and WP:V, is published by University of Illinois Press, is meticulously documented and has been well-reviewed in the academic literature. The book was mostly used for describing William Shockley's role in the controversy and the funding of hereditarian research by the Pioneer Fund. (A recent biography of Shockley says more or less the same thing.) Leaving this aside, am I correct in understanding the point of view of your edits? In Captain Occam's edits he writes about those who "share his POV", so I'm just really wondering whether I have stated it correctly above. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't stomach your insinuations. Instead of trying to impugn my intentions, why don't you address the concrete content issue I've identified? I realize I have limited experience as an editor, but I know a biased presentation when I see it. --DJ (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci wrote: "Another like-minded member of his team, Distributivejustice, is now claiming that one of the sources - by William H. Tucker, a psychologist and author of a prize-winning book on the history of funding of the hereditarian research - is not a qualified historian and therefore material from his book should be removed from wikipedia."

This is a lie. Tucker's writing on Jensen is a severely negative misrepresentation of what Jensen actually wrote. You have used Tucker's words as unattributed fact, and insisted that what Jensen actually said be kept out of the article. Jensen is a living person, we are required represent him fairly. DJ was repeating this point, which you still refuse to accept. He said nothing about removing Tucker, as you know. When he clarified this, you replied with his editing record.

In my opinion some kind of sanctions are necessary while we clean up the article. mikemikev (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

“Captain Occam and his team still seem set on including as many indications as possible on wikipedia that the hereditarian view of race and intelligence - that there is incontrovertible proof that the intelligence of blacks on average is significantly less than that of whites due to inherent genetic features of race.”

Mathsci, in my comment below I posted three diffs of material I added to the race and intelligence article which favor an environmental cause of the IQ gap. In the approximately a year that I have been involved in this article, this is a greater amount of pro-environmental material than you have ever added to it. I, too, would like you redact your comment. It is a rather blatant breach of WP:NPA with its unsupported accusations of policy violations against me and DJ. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is about tag-teaming by SPAs on History of the race and intelligence controversy. It's a red herring to bring up Race and intelligence here. Mathsci (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It’s relevant because it disproves your accusation that the purpose of my involvement in these articles is only to push a hereditarian point of view.

Now that I’ve pointed this out, are you going to redact your comment in which you claimed this about me, and stop claiming it in the future? Or do you intend to continue knowingly and willingly perpetuating a false accusation against me? --Captain Occam (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion about sources reminds me of a discussion with Log in, log out (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on WP:ANI in 2008. It continued on my talk page here. There the editor was questioning the reputation of Johanna Nichols, a professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley. The same kind of circular and repetitive arguments are now being applied to William H. Tucker. Mikemikev writes above "while we clean up the article". An interesting use of the word "we" here. It doesn't look very good at all. Mathsci (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Here Mathsci gives a fine example of his stonewalling. Above I wrote:

"This is a lie. Tucker's writing on Jensen is a severely negative misrepresentation of what Jensen actually wrote. You have used Tucker's words as unattributed fact, and insisted that what Jensen actually said be kept out of the article. Jensen is a living person, we are required represent him fairly...In my opinion some kind of sanctions are necessary while we clean up the article."

Did Mathsci address this, the core issue here? No: an irrelevant link to his talk page and some vague insinuations about my use of a word. Note also how I accused him of lying (which I stand by). No problems with that Mathsci? Doesn't look too good does it? mikemikev (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

According to wikipedia editing policy, we find good secondary sources. We then report accurately what is in them. Something I didn't include in the article is the documented evidence that (a) Shockley was instrumental in arranging for Jensen to be funded by the Pioneer Fund and (b) this funding was channelled through a special institute set up with Jensen as president and his wife as vice president. I chose not to include that material. I can't say whether it's negative or positive, but I thought it was WP:UNDUE to go into detail. What is in the article was designed to be neutral, anodyne and inoffensive. The 1969 article of Jensen is described by quotes from the article appearing in the secondary sources, mostly from Wooldridge - there doesn't seem to be any misrepresentation. Some editors have been removing material about contemporary criticisms, without convincing reasons. As I understand it a history article like that should just summarise the events as they are recounted in the sources, without distortion. Nobody comes off particularly well either in the secondary sources or in the article. I could still imagine including some mention of the Head Start Program in the USA, missing at the moment, but mentioned in some sources. I note that it's mentioned in the BLP of Arthur Jensen, a BLP which goes into detail about the aftermath of his 1969 paper - it doesn't read as something very positive, less so than the article currently under discussion. Since creating the history article, I finished the Handel grand concertos article and at present am starting to resume work on Triumphs of Caesar. Mathsci (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a Topic Ban

I propose that the time has come for a topic ban on the SPA editors who have been plaguing these articles. They stated they were prepared to work elswhere voluntarily, that seems to be untrue and now I think an involuntary ban is reluctantly necessary. The time has come for AN/I to support productive editors who support the core mission statement of NPOV against SPA editors seeking to skew articles in favout of a particluar minority POV. Too often we talk too much but don't take action. Justin talk 21:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to reply with a quote from the Academy Award winning film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film):

Bromden spots (or he thinks he spots) one of the attendants listening at the door. He wants to warn the others, but doesn't know how.

SEFELT- Maybe he'll [McMurphy] just show Nurse Ratched his big thing an' she'll open the door for him.

Sefelt and Frederickson smile at each other.

Bromden slides along the wall toward the door.

MCMURPHY- Yeah, maybe I will, and then maybe I'll just use that thick skull of yours and knock a hole in the wall Sefelt.

Bromden reaches the door and looks out. No one is there.[5][6] --120 Volt monkey (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the meaning of your quote in this context. I certainly hope it's not expressing the opinion that some Wikipedia editor's skull should be used as a battering ram? Please enlighten me, because I'm confused.

Oh, and i should say that I support a topic ban for the SPA editors on the R&I articles, which sounds like a pretty darn good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I presume the reference to a film about a mental hospital is referring to my mental health problems. I have been diagnosed with PTSD, it wouldn't be the first time my contribution history has been mined for my problems to be brought up as a means to devalue my contributions. Never mind this old tom has a fairly thick skin. Justin talk 10:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This would include Mathsci also, right? As I pointed out above, even though Mathsci didn’t used to be an SPA, it’s apparent from the past week of his contributions that he no longer has any interest in editing articles that aren’t related to race and intelligence. (His contributions to other articles have been declining for the past month, but it’s for the past week that he’s had literally no involvement in articles outside of this topic.) His interest in this topic is more obsessive than that of any other user involved in the articles at this point: on the R & I history article and its talk page, he now has as many edits as all other users combined. To ban all SPA editors on these articles, but specifically exclude him, would be a kind of obvious double standard. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you guys will stop opposing the topic ban in exchange for Mathsci accepting one as well, I urge Mathsci to take the deal. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

mathsci has been editing since 2006, with 15000 edits to a lot of articles, but he is a SPA because in the last week he has only edited one topic? This definition of SPA is not good. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict with Captain Occam, above) We had an ANI incident (linked upthread) a few weeks ago with the same proposal, that got support from some pretty sensible and experienced users for topic banning the SPA's, but got enough opposition to not reach consensus. A negotiated mutual exit by Mathsci and Captain Occam also seemed like a possible hope to escape heavyweight dispute resolution at that time, but it's not looking to be in the cards by now. and maybe it looks like a possibility again? Durova suggested RFCU and Guy has been suggesting arbitration.

  Maybe I'm projecting my personal experiences onto this too much but I think the basic problem is that documenting the misconduct at the level needed for an arb case takes many tedious hours of mining 100's of diffs, an intensely burnout-inducing process about as appealing as wading through chest-deep bio-waste for the same amount of time. So there's a tension between recognizing its necessity and getting started, and staying through the awfulness of actually doing it to the end. And someone wanting to avoid conflict and write neutral articles is at a huge disadvantage when the opponent is someone who actually enjoys and seeks out conflict (WP:BATTLEGROUND) (the userpage User:Captain Occam begins "I’m an artist and writer who likes to debate..." and goes on to name various traditional WP battleground subjects). (When both sides like conflict, we get madness like "Date delinking").

  Based on the above, I think I can understand why Mathsci brings complaints here and then doesn't tend to them that carefully. There's a huge sense of futility in trying to beat back crap like this. It's easy to start the process because it's necessary, but then run out of steam because it's just not worth the headache. I've done the same thing myself more than once. I figure if Mathsci wanted to go through the hassle of RFC or arbitration he'd have initiated it by now; and if not, it's just a hell of a lot to ask from a user in good standing.

  I'm fine with the idea of topic-banning the SPA's and wish good luck to those who think it's worth trying it here a second time. I'm not so hopeful that it will work. If it fails: I propose:

Race and intelligence and related articles including History of the race and intelligence controversy are under discretionary sanctions like those given in the Homeopathy arbitration.

That will decrease the threshold required for admin intervention in future incidents. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

People have brought up that phrase on my userpage enough times that I should probably say something about it. The reason I enjoy debating about topics I care about is not the same reason why I get involved in these articles. If you read any of the debates I’ve been involved in with creationists such as the one linked to on my userpage, I think it’s apparent there that the reason I enjoy this is because I enjoy educating other people about topics I’m knowledgeable about—and it’s happened a few times that I’ve convinced creationists of evolution as a result of this, which is a very gratifying experience. There’s no hope of anything like that in articles about race-related topics at Wikipedia, because everybody who edits them is so entrenched in their positions that the most I can ever hope for is to allowed to edit them without interference. The reason I tend to gravitate towards these sorts of articles is because they tend to be the ones that tend to have the most obvious problems in terms of bias or poor writing, so they’re the ones that I always think are the most in need of improvement.

I don’t enjoy debating with people like Mathsci at all. The reason I tolerate it is just because I know otherwise there’s no way it would be possible to improve these articles. I guess at some point I should edit the information you’re quoting on my userpage to make this clearer.

I mentioned in Mathsci’s previous thread about this why at this point, I wouldn’t be ready to agree to abandon R & I related articles if Mathsci agreed to do the same: right now we’re still in the process of implementing some of the changes to the race and intelligence article that we agreed on during the mediation for it. However, one thing I’ve been trying to do as a result of the previous AN/I thread is to edit a wider range of articles here, since I hadn’t been aware before that thread of how much this mattered to a lot of people here; this is the reason why most of my content edits over the past few days have been to the (non-controversial) William Beebe article rather than anything race-related. This apparently isn’t enough to change the attitudes of people who think of me as only being here to push my viewpoint about race topics, though. If this situation doesn’t get any better, I guess your suggestion about discretionary sanctions sounds like as good an idea as any. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You're a good writer and I hope you do switch to other subject areas regardless of how that happens. I urge you to pick reasonably uncontentious areas, e.g. not anything to do with creationism, evolution, religion, etc, and try not to get into too many arguments. I'm very glad to hear that you may be willing to accept an exit agreement with Mathsci soon, but it sounds like your compatriots may also have to sign on, and I'm not that optimistic that the stuff holding you up will ever be declared completed. And it's not just the quote on your talk page; I've had enough contact with you by now to recognize that you do like debate and conflict (by what I think of as our standards). That's not a bad thing in itself (we all have a streak of it), but WP isn't a good venue for it, so try to resist the urge when possible. (Actually I think it was me who brought up your user page quote before--I had forgotten. But it was because of a conclusion I'd reached from earlier interaction, not the other way around.) 69.228.170.24 (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I’m not sure if I was clear about this. What I’m saying is that I would not be ready to accept an exit agreement with Mathsci yet, because not all of the changes to race and intelligence that we agreed on during mediation have been implemented yet. I might be willing to agree to something like this after they’re finished being implemented, but that may not be for around another month (or longer, depending on how much conflict we run into while trying to implement these changes).

When and if I’m ready to agree to an exit agreement with Mathsci, I might need for it to also extend to some of the other editors who’ve often involved themselves in this article with behavior and viewpoints similar to Mathsci’s. Most of the people I’m thinking of aren’t involved in the article currently, but I worry what would happen if they were to show up again after all of the currently active contributors have agreed to leave, meaning that these people have basically free reign over the article for as long as we’re staying away from it. Another option would be that if we end up all agreeing to leave the article alone after we’ve finished making the changes we decided on during mediation, we could then lock the article for as long as that agreement is in effect, in order to make sure that these changes don’t get undone during our absence. That’s something else I would approve of, as long as we finish making these changes before it’s locked. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I refactored my post a little bit last night without realizing you were in the middle of replying to it, but I think they're consistent with each other now. I think you should be ready to be a bit more flexible if necessary. I'm not a lawyer or anything like that, but I know that's part of the nature of negotiated settlements that both sides usually end up a bit unhappy (i.e. each side thinks the other side got too much), so you should expect that and accept it. Is there a concise list somewhere of the issues that you're working on, that were agreed in the mediation? Maybe there is some streamlined way to deal with it. (Actually, something is already amiss: this current ANI thread is about a dispute in the "history" article, which means you're already working on something that can't have been in the original mediation agreement list, unless I'm confused. What's going on?)

I think the main alternative is arbitration, which has a substantial likelihood of leading to your side getting topic banned while Mathsci could keep editing the articles. The process itself would be quite burnout-inducing for everyone involved, something I don't want to see. Avoiding that level of conflict is why people enter what they see as lousy settlements in the real world, so think of this as a microcosm. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No I don't see Mathsci as an SPA, the editors any sanction is to apply to will be determined by community discussion. I suggest that AN/I needs to do something before this ends unhappily at arbcom. Justin talk 10:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Goodness - SPA, Marxist, anti-hereditarian .... I created the history article fairly recently and over a short period while finishing the much more difficult article Handel concerti grossi Op.6 which took 4 months. A topic ban has already been suggested by Ludwigs2: it was almost unanimously voted down. The article is neutral well-sourced and carefully written. There has been some sensible discussion on sources, etc, on the talk page between administrators - Maunus, Slimvirgin and Slrubenstein - which has been very helpful. Other than that, from my long-time experience watching Europe and Ethnic groups of Europe and the periodic disruption that can occur there (usually motivated by nationalism), it is quite apparent that the history article has been besieged by a group of SPAs, whose editing is restricted to race-related articles. In these circumstances the correct remedy is to encourage participation by editors of long-standing with wider editing experience, not the opposite. When that happens, I will be quite relieved to remove the history article from my watch list. So. in summary, (a) increase the number of non-SPA editors and (b) decrease the number of SPA editors. (b) is much easier to achieve than (a). Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support I support this proposal. Whether Captain Occam and the other SPAs are acting in good faith or not, it is better for the encyclopedia if a small band of editors, with no other demonstrated interests here, be not allowed to continually edit in the small, but controversial, class of articles of their only interest. Controversial subjects have strong POV advocates and these POV advocates tend to be Single Purpose Accounts. I don't think that a topic ban for mathsci is necessary because he/she is clearly not an SPA. May I also add that the use of the 'we' in Captain Occam's statement above, while I don't want to read too much into it, is concerning. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment If ArbCom cannot intervene here because of objects like: "It would take too much time and effort", I would say that ArbCom would need to be redesigned so that it can deal with this sort of problem in an effective way. Why do we have an ArbCom at all if it cannot be used? Count Iblis (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Count Iblis, arbcom takes complex cases that the community is unable to resolve at a less formal level (which is what we're trying to do here). We have arbcom because some cases really are that complex and/or polarizing. Your complaint about arbcom being ineffective is a bit misplaced; it's the community that should be more effective at resolving these issues without requiring arbcom involvement. Arbcom has its own problems but that's not what's going on here. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Commment A topic ban is not necessary here, I think, and in any case would require that a case be developed with supporting diffs. A few days ago I added strong evidence for the anti-hereditarian perspective in Nisbett's discussion of intensive education (diff). Yesterday Lowk (talk · contribs) added more supporting information in transracial adoption/genetic studies (diff). The group there has thus far not reverted these additions. The problem here isn't that you have a group with a strong POV who are being completely unreasonable. It's just that the hereditarian editor group is not going to research and add much on the anti-hereditarian perspective or critiques of it, and the smaller editor group that is anti-hereditarian (Mathsci, Slrubenstein) either lack boldness or experience in working with scientific articles, because they don't seem to be adding the relevant data. II | (t - c) 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment From what I've been able to gather, there has traditionally been a group in Wikipedia attempting to present the "hereditarian model" as a fringe belief and another group refusing to accept that it is fringe. The fringe advocate group tries to push discussion of the hereditarian model out of articles and also tends to promote the idea that race is only a social construct, an idea the other group also refuses to accept. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion. Race and intelligence is a field so renowned for its fraughtness, sensitivities and disputes that many angels fear to tread there. This AN/I debate appears to have developed into a full-scale fight between the classic factions of the issue, both unwilling to concede or compromise. Would it be helpful to create two articles History of the race and intelligence controversy: *** perspectives and History of the race and intelligence controversy: non-*** perspectives where *** stands for "hereditarian" or "Marxist" or some other word that delineates the distinction between the approaches in a way that is acceptable to the contenders? The factions could then edit to their hearts' content and, when finished, the articles could be merged if that were felt to be desirable or possible. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC).
  • Xxanthippe, you're proposing a WP:POVFORK, and we don't do those. We write neutral articles that present all viewpoints with due weight, or at least we try. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That is why I was suggesting a subsequent merger. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC).

Oh, I see. I suspect the mediation process already went further than that, and I'm not sure how anyone could do the merge without a lot more drama, but people who were present through the mediation (maybe that includes you, I'm not sure) would know best. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Since I was present for the entire duration of the mediation process, I’ll try to summarize its results. I don’t think I can list all of what was resolved during it in a single comment, but there are two resolutions we reached that I think stand out as being especially important.

The first is that the hereditarian hypothesis does not meet Wikipedia’s standards of a “fringe” theory. The most important discussion that led to this conclusion can be found here. Note that the two editors who reached a compromise with Varoon Arya about this, Aprock and Slrubenstein, are editors who normally favor a purely environmental explanation for the IQ gap. And in case anyone was thinking of leveling the “POV-pushing SPA” accusation against Varoon Arya, take a look at his contributions; he obviously isn’t one.

And the second important thing we resolved is that rather than structuring the article based on various viewpoints about this topic, we ought to present all of the most-discussed data on this topic, regardless of who collected it or what hypothesis it’s most often considered to favor. (We referred to this as a “data-centric” structure.) This is why nobody has reverted ImperfectlyInformed additions—according to what we resolved in mediation, any data published in a reliable source that favors environmental causes is welcome in this article, as long as it doesn’t violate WP:UNDUE. Something else that nobody has commented on here (I wonder why not?) is that the majority of data in the current article that favors environmental causes was not added by editors like Aprock and Slrubenstein; it was added by me. Three examples of this are here, here, and here.

(Quoted from ImperfectlyInformed's comment): "The problem here isn't that you have a group with a strong POV who are being completely unreasonable. It's just that the hereditarian editor group is not going to research and add much on the anti-hereditarian perspective or critiques of it, and the smaller editor group that is anti-hereditarian (Mathsci, Slrubenstein) either lack boldness or experience in working with scientific articles, because they don't seem to be adding the relevant data."

Slrubenstein has been fairly helpful in making sure pro-environmental data gets added; he was one of the people who favored my three revisions that I just linked to. But as for Mathsci, I think it’s been pointed out already why he isn’t being helpful with this. For the past month, he’s generally been more concerned with his personal conflicts against other users than with improving the article. His conduct during the mediation is one example of this, when he was refusing to offer any suggestions in the mediation itself, and instead repeatedly tried to get the mediation shut down via multiple AN/I threads. More recent examples of the same thing, at WQA, are here and here. The comments on Mathsci’s behavior there from Ncmvocalist, an uninvolved user, seem to be particularly pertinent:

Mathsci, when you made this ANI topic ban proposal, the community did not come to a consensus, and in doing so, gave you feedback that you need to provide diffs to justify your position. Clearly, this has not sunk into your head because since then, you've made another ANI posting about tag-team editing by a set of individuals without providing diffs - and have named Mikemikev (the subject) as one of those individuals. I'm not sure how many times or ways in which you are going to be whacked with the following fact, but here we go again: you are not being receptive to community feedback - please address that issue. […] Let me be unambiguously clear: you chose to bring this complaint here...and you're expected to be receptive to the feedback that you receive here (and you're expected to know this if you're an established contributor) - whether you're a subject or a filing party. JamesBWatson, Dolphin, Gerardw, and I (who have referred to every one of these opinions) have stated in no uncertain terms that your behaviour is not up to par and needs to change. In response to this, you keep battling. Each of those admins you allude to are welcome to review this situation and explain why their comments give you a license to abuse dispute resolution as a means of forumshopping for the feedback that you find most convenient for you.

I think it’s evident from the WQA threads that the current conflict over the article is not because of a lack of balance among the editors involved in it, or because of inflexibility on the part of those whose opinion during the mediation was that more space should be given to the hereditarian position. I think the most significant problem is that we have one editor (Mathsci) who’s actively seeking out conflict with other users, at the expense of dispute resolution or productive editing. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful synopsis. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC).

What you seek to portray as "actively seeking out conflict with other users" appears to be, in fact, an active attempt to restore the article to NPOV status, one which is actively, and, I think, disruptively, being fought against by the very SPA editors whom this topic ban is aimed at. In fact, it's the very reason for the topic ban -- since you've shown, quite impressively, that you and your compatriots are unable to work in a NPOV manner, and insist upon distorting these articles to your fringe POVs, then you should be shut-out from them so that other editors can work on the article to bring it back into compliance with our standards. That is clearly never going to happen if the SPAs are allowed continued free reign.Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to address any of what I’ve actually said in my comment? Such as the consensus that was reached during mediation, including three editors who opposed the hereditarian hypothesis (Aprock, Slrubenstein and Ludwigs2) that it does not meet Wikipedia’s definition of a fringe theory; or the fact that I have added more information to the race and intelligence article in favor of the environmental viewpoint than in favor of the hereditarian one, and have not interfered with any other editor’s attempts to add content to this article in favor of environmental causes such as the recent additions from ImperfectlyInformed? Just like every one of Mathsci’s other five AN/I complaints in the past month, this one is coming close to filling half of the page at AN/I without approaching any kind of resolution, and one the biggest reasons this keeps happening is because of people like you believing every one of Mathsci’s assertions despite the fact that he provides no diffs or links to support them, while ignoring anyone who provides links or diffs demonstrating the opposite. In this respect, people like you are giving him active encouragement to continue violating Wikipedia’s rule against forum shopping, along with the other policy violations that Ncmvocalist pointed out in the WQA thread. Is this really the effect that you want to be having? --Captain Occam (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

My criticism of Mathsci's conduct should not be isolated from my comment below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on race-related articles for SPAs like Distributivejustice, Captain Occam and Mikemikev. Too much time is being wasted by them, with no benefit to this encyclopedia. Here is a reminder how I make content edits [7]: Jensen in that case was one of three secondary sources used. A neutral, well-sourced set of edits, neither anti-hereditarian nor Marxist. Mathsci (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support SPA topic ban There have been too many dubious researchers in the field, so it is too easy for SPA editors to inject dubious POV positions into Wikipedia. The enormous energy that the SPA editors are focusing on this issue is not assisting the encyclopedia. Mathsci is not an SPA and should be thanked, not restricted. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose POV warriors hurling anathemas at each other. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC).
• Comment Here is a synopsis of what I have observed at History of the race and intelligence controversy. Mathsci wrote a good article but relied too much on Tucker (2002) and without needed attribution of Tucker's POV. Wooldridge seems to be a neutral source, however. I pointed out two NPOV problems here. One has subsequently been fixed (not by me). One remains in part, described here. User:Maunus may intend to address this issue. A number of other ostensibly experienced editors have added suggestions to the talk page. Their continued efforts would probably settle the issue. At race and intelligence it seems that everyone is burnt out. --DJ (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Didn't Mathsci have a topic on this just a couple weeks ago? Why is Wikipedia's rule against forum shopping not being honored here? It's annoying to see this issue constantly taking up so much space here. --Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that other thread originally was opened by Captain Occam as a somewhat ginned-up civility complaint against SLRubenstein, though it quickly morphed into a topic ban proposal by Mathsci. I agree that Mathsci's approach to DR has not been ideal, but it is what it is. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

section break

• Support topic ban for any accounts at those articles that an uninvolved admin judges to be single-purpose accounts. SPAs have become a huge problem on Wikipedia, and in my view should be removed from the topic they're attempting to influence as soon as they start to cause a problem on it. That can be done without implying that they're acting in bad faith: the issue is the single-minded focus and the lack of all-round experience of WP's culture and policies. It's particularly important to avoid that kind of editing at sensitive articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 12:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any precedent for banning editors simply because they edit a narrow range of articles, if they aren’t acting in bad faith or engaging in any other policy violations? I don’t think there is. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's common for SPAs who are causing a problem to be topic-banned or banned completely, yes. The issue is not good faith/bad faith. It's that we have a team of editors on the one hand who edit lots of different articles and types of articles, and who come to see how the policies are applied across a broad range of articles. Reading policies is never enough; you have to see how they function within the project. And on the other hand, we have individuals with strong views on one particular issue who arrive to slant one article or set of articles toward their personal point of view. They do this with no knowledge or experience of how to apply the policies, so it's bound to cause problems. As things stand, you've made only 250 edits to articles since 2006, all or most in the same area. If you want to edit there, you might consider editing other articles for the next six or 12 months, then coming back to this one with fresh eyes. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 13:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So in other words, it sounds like the idea of topic bans for the users that Mathsci reported here is based on the assumption that our edits have been contrary to NPOV. If that’s the case, it certainly hasn’t been demonstrated. Mathsci has not provided any diffs to support his accusation of POV-pushing, and I’ve provided several to demonstrate the opposite, such as that I’ve added more pro-environmental information than pro-hereditarian information to the race and intelligence article. (And certainly more pro-environmental information than Mathsci has added.) Judging by the contributions I’ve actually made to this article, if I’m slanting it in any direction at all, it’s in the direction of the cause of the IQ gap being purely environmental.

Something I think you ought to consider here is why it is that even though there are five different users involved in these articles who clearly favor the 100%-environmental explanation for the IQ gap—Mathsci, Aprock, Ludwigs2, Slrubenstein and Muntuwandi—Mathsci is the only one who keeps complaining about tag-teaming, POV-pushing and so on. (Remember, this is at least his sixth ANI thread about this since late March.) The number of editors involved in these articles who agree with Mathsci in terms of content is about equal to the number who appear to favor the hereditarian hypothesis, and with the exception of Mathsci, these two groups have not have a lot of trouble working over the past few months. Ludwigs2 is an especially good example, because even though he agrees with Mathsci in terms of content, he’s also one of the biggest critics of Mathsci’s behavior. Slrubenstein generally regards my editing as helpful (or to use his own word, “exemplary”) even though his viewpoint about this topic is different from mine. Given that everyone except Mathsci is able to work cooperatively on these articles, despite our disagreements, is it not possible that the problem with these articles is being caused by Mathsci rather than by everyone he’s complaining about?

Everyone here seems to just be assuming that the problem can’t be Mathsci’s fault, because he has a longer history of contributions than most of us. And as a result, they’re not looking at any of the specifics of this conflict, or any of the diffs being posted, and just assuming a priori that Mathsci must be right and that the solution is to ban everyone who he has a problem with. How can you know that’s the right solution, when Mathsci hasn’t provided any diffs to support his accusation that the problem here is with everyone else?

I am confident that if Mathsci were to quit his involvement in these articles, at least 75% of the conflict over them would disappear. This isn’t because the remaining editors there would all be people who favor the hereditarian hypothesis, since Aprock, Ludwigs2, Slrubenstein and Muntuwandi all oppose this hypothesis and would still be involved. The difference between them and Mathsci is that these editors are able to work cooperatively with people who they disagree with, so disagreements between them and other users never escalate into anything like what we’re dealing with in Mathsci’s case. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

While the willingness to discuss is good, the tendency to push through majority decisions is not. Consensus is not the same as majority. Someone with a minority view is even more important to engage and satisfy as without minority views we have lost a major asset in NPOV. You do not have consensus until the minority also agrees. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem we’ve been having with Mathsci (well, one of the problems) is that he generally isn’t willing to engage in discussion about these issues. In the history of the race and intelligence controversy article, when other users have raised NPOV concerns on the article talk page, Mathsci often just hasn’t responded at all. When he has, it’s generally either been with personal attacks that had nothing to do with the content in question, or by repeating his earlier claims in an endless loop, without acknowledging any of what had already been said in response to them. I linked to several examples of this early on in this thread.

We tried to discuss these issues with Mathsci for several weeks, and he engaged in this stonewalling behavior the entire time. After it became clear that he had no interest in engaging in any meaningful discussion with us, we tried just editing the article to fix the problems that everyone but Mathsci was agreed needed fixing, and he responded by edit warring against us. When he was reverted by multiple users, he began complaining here at AN/I about “tag teaming”, which is where we are currently. As I said earlier, the people about whom Mathsci is complaining have made every possible effort to come to an agreement with him, and Mathsci hasn’t cooperated with it. Unless you suggest that we ought to submit to him just because of how much noise he’s been making, or out of fear because of his threats, there’s nothing that the rest of us could have done differently in order to avoid this problem. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: MathSci is not a SPA. It is worrying that some SPAs can't see the difference between a busy editor who concentrates on one area for a week, and an editor who has narrow interests here. I again suggest that the SPAs slow down a bit and spend their spare time on seeing how things are done more widely, to put their actions in a wider context. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on all editors named by MathSci, including those removed by the Ludwigs2, and on Ludwigs2. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is quite depressing. Almost nobody seems to be bothering to address, or even look at, the diffs that I and a few other people have posted about how Mathsci is misrepresenting this situation. Instead we’ve got comments like this one, assuming that Mathsci must be right, despite the fact that he’s posted no diffs to support his own assertions about this. If the majority of users end up taking Mathsci’s word for this situation (which is all he’s provided to support his claims), and all actual evidence that’s posted about it gets ignored, will that be a consensus?

If it is, and all seven of us (Me, Mikemikev, DJ, 120 Volt Monkey, David.Kane, Varoon Arya and Ludwigs2) get banned for this reason, I can pretty much guarantee that this will be the end of my contributions to Wikipedia, and probably also that of most of the other users who Mathsci’s behavior hasn’t driven off already. (As it has in Varoon Arya’s case.) I have no interest in contributing to a site where a single user’s past history of contributions and rhetoric are sufficient to ban seven other users, and it makes no difference what evidence is brought up to demonstrate that his allegations are inaccurate. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think I would be naiive if I threw an unconditional support. It's one thing to allow editors to make the article comply with site standards (by removing the problem); it's another to do so while leaving a ticking timebomb. I believe that Mathsci is advancing the right cause, but recently, has been doing so in the wrong way. That Mathsci's behavior is not staying up to par suggests that all involved editors are burning out; he did not respond well to the criticism of his conduct by strictly uninvolved users at WQA.

• The condition I want to attach to the proposal is an assurance that editors advancing the right cause are going to take a temporary break so that this "burn-out" does not affect interactions with other (uninvolved) editors. I'm not sure why this is being dismissed as if it is the plague, because even after the break, the tendentious problem would've still been removed via the proposed measure so the topic/article can be fixed quite easily. It would also mean that the ticking timebomb (a burnt out contributor) does not remain a hazard.

• If that condition is fulfilled, I will support unconditionally. The alternative unconditional support is for arbitration where all conduct will be looked into and addressed. I think the former is preferrable, and certainly not unreasonable, but that's just my view? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Hopefully this will be construed as intended: constructive criticism. User:Captain Occam is well intentioned but a little impatient, possibly because his energy level is very high. User:Mathsci is very intelligent but prickly at least in recent interactions. If they could get along, they would complement each other very well and the articles they work on would benefit. --DJ (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Captain Occam asks: Is there any precedent for banning editors simply because they edit a narrow range of articles, if they aren’t acting in bad faith or engaging in any other policy violations? I don’t think there is. Yes there certainly is. See: WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas. As implemented in that arbitration, "agenda" didn't mean bad faith, it just meant they editing from a particular point of view in the affected articles. It was used to restrict over a dozen editors. The case was discussed in the last big ANI thread about this R&I dispute. The restriction is not a misconduct sanction and there is no misconduct allegation inherent in the proposal. It just expresses a community finding that the drama and neutrality issues associated with the SPA involvement in the topic is more unhelpful than their contributions in that topic are helpful. Whether there is precedent or not, it is certainly a remedy that the community is entitled to settle on by WP:Consensus in a discussion like this one. In any case, it has been done in the past, and Slim Virgin, a respected veteran of many wiki battles and many shifts in policy and practices toward them, is calling for it to be done more often in general, for reasons that make a lot of sense. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

“It just expresses a community finding that the drama and neutrality issues associated with the SPA involvement in the topic is more unhelpful than their contributions in that topic are helpful.”

This is the part that I don’t think is applicable. There are around ten users involved in these articles; five who tend to argue in favor of the hereditarian hypothesis and five who argue in favor of the environmental hypothesis. For the most part, we’re all able to get along, and the editors who aren’t SPAs generally find the SPAs’ contributions helpful. As I explained in more detail above, Mathsci is the only user involved in this article who has a serious problem with any of the SPAs. But a lot of people here seem to be assuming from Mathsci’s complaints that all of the people he’s reported here are a problem to the article in general, when in fact we’re only a problem to him.

Is a content dispute between a single user and several others, some of whom are SPAs (and some, like Varoon Arya, who are not) sufficient grounds to ban all SPAs from the article? And if it’s not, shouldn’t the burden of proof be on Mathsci to demonstrate that this is more than just a content dispute that he’s trying to resolve by banning the users that disagree with him? He hasn’t posted any links or diffs to demonstrate that the people he’s reporting here are causing any overall detriment to the article, and I’ve posted several that I think show the real problem here is just that Mathsci hasn’t made enough of an effort at resolving his content disputes before bringing them to AN/I. I would hope that the community would consider the evidence about this before coming to a decision, but some of the recent comments here make me worry that they’re just going to take it on Mathsci’s word that his interpretation of this situation is accurate. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support I think SlimVirgin explains why real well. I think it's time for the editors who only edit these groups of articles go to other articles to see and experience more of the project. Captain Occam, just so you know being banned from this group of articles isn't the end of the world and you actually might enjoy working on a less controversial article(s). Remember there is no dead lines here so after whatever time passes, the article will still be there. Good luck to all of you and hopefully happy editing, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I see a lot of evidence presented by Captain Occam and the others that they aren’t the ones causing a problem here, and nothing equivalent has been presented by Mathsci at all. I can't tell what the people voting "support" are basing their opinions on, but it does not appear to be based on the specifics of this situation. I don’t have much experience with Wikipedia, but seeing six editors get topic-banned (if that’s what happens) as a result of people literally ignoring the evidence here gives me a pretty bad impression of the site. --Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note, there was an earlier thread where additional evidence was presented, though not enough to reach consensus that time around.[8] IIRC, Ferragho the Assassin didn't participate in that thread, so s/he may have missed it. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• The page you linked to is blank. --Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Here’s an earlier version of the page, from before it was blanked: [9]

ImperfectlyInformed and Ncmvocalist both pointed out in that thread that Mathsci didn’t provide any diffs that time around either. I can provide quotes or diffs of their comments if anyone wants, but I have a feeling that any evidence I present about this will just get ignored also. Am I right to assume that? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not ignoring it. I think Mathsci needs to post diffs showing that the problems with these articles are the fault of the people he's trying to get banned, or his accusations shouldn't be taken seriously. --Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I do have to wonder how Ferahgo the Assassin found his/her way here with 17 total edits. What I think Slim Virgin is getting at is that banning someone from Wikipedia (so they can't edit any of our 3.2 million articles) is a drastic action that requires a lot of evidence, but restricting them to 3.19999 million articles out of the total 3.2 million is much less drastic, so we've been moving towards the idea that if someone is getting into difficulty in a disputed set of articles then we can and should require them to switch to other areas until they're more experienced—regardless of whether they're doing anything wrong or whose "fault" the problems are. In difficult areas it's just not possible to edit by our norms simply by reading the policy documents and trying to follow them. To understand the norms, you have to live in the culture for a while. Mathsci did give some diffs in the earlier thread, though not enough for traditional DR. However, he was backed up by several uninvolved users who had been watching the situation. The suggestion of topic-banning SPA's came from Guy, a very experienced admin who sees through nonsense readily. It was endorsed afterwards by Mathsci but didn't originate with him. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci’s complaints about these articles have been dominating AN/I for the past month. It's hard to ignore it when stuff like this is going on.

Is there actually a policy for topic-banning editors just for lack of experience, even if there’s no evidence of them causing any problems? I thought SlimVirgin was saying this only happened to inexperienced users who were doing more harm than good to articles, or advocating a specific POV. If lack of experience really is enough on its own, I think that’s an absurd policy. It means inexperienced people should never get involved in any articles about controversial topics, because no matter how well they behave, as long as they're inexperienced the same thing could happen to them. --Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Could you please explain why Captain Occam contacted you on your talk page about your edits to Race and crime when you have never edited that article? Do you have other user names at Wikipedia? Hipocrite (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether to restrict someone would be at the judgment of an admin not involved in the dispute. They are mostly pretty sensible about when something needs intervention and when it doesn't. If you do get restricted, don't take it personally. Just edit some uncontroversial articles for a while. If you have to edit something controversial, pick a topic that you don't have a strong view about, so you can edit neutrally. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(Responding to your earlier comment): What I remember most of the admins who commented in the other thread saying about the diffs Mathsci posted there was that they didn’t demonstrate anything like what Mathsci was claiming. Here is what ImperfectlyInformed had to say about the evidence Mathsci was posting:

Oppose topic ban This is absurd. No diffs have been presented. You can't be banned for editing a small range of articles. End of story. Bring the evidence before the discussion starts. I will note that I looked through diffs presented by Mathsci, and they all look like this - Occam asking Ludwigs for help. That's it. Otherwise it's all rhetoric, which is really hot air. I will note that I am slightly involved in race and intelligence, but I've only added a ref to a study which found black IQs higher than whites [10].

Also, isn’t Guy the admin who said early on in the previous thread about this that he’d be basing his opinions on the reputations of the users involved, rather than any of the specifics of the situation, and at least five other admins responded that he wasn’t being reasonable? If you don’t remember this, please take a look at the thread again; it’s near the beginning of it. I’m sorry, but if you’re suggesting that Guy is a “neutral party” to be making a suggestion about this, I think his earlier comments about this show that this isn’t the case. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy wrote "I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or judgement of the project's mores, I'll be backing Slrubenstein". That is completely reasonable; Slrubenstein has had wide and deep participation in the project both on the content and the policy side, and has "walked the walk" much more than someone whose total involvement has been to obsessively edited a handful of related contentious articles. Of course there are other factors to consider in dispute resolution besides the participants' knowledge and commitment. However, trust me, before you started that thread I had never noticed you, yet it was obvious from the beginning that you either had poor understanding of how things are done around here, or else were being flat-out tendentious. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And what about the comments from all of the other admins who said that Guy’s attitude about this was not acceptable? The comments from Equazcion, Epeefleche, Maurreen, Rico and Ohconfucius? I don’t have space to quote all of them, but Epeefleche’s seems to be the most detailed explanation for what’s wrong with Guy’s attitude:

Wow. I have respect for Slrubenstein. But Guy/JzG, I think your comment is way off-base, though you may well have given voice to a misapprehension that plagues other sysops as well. The mop does not by any means entitle Slrubenstein to better treatment than Occam is entitled to. Frankly -- it is precisely the opposite. The admin rules, and the bases upon which actions can be taken against admins, makes it quite clear that sysops have greater, not lesser, obligations than do non-sysop editors. Furthermore, as the oft-quoted "don't bite the newbies" guideline suggests, it is the newer editors -- not the more experienced ones -- whom we should take extra care with. Your "Slrubenstein is an admin ... I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or judgement [sic] of the project's mores, I'll be backing Slrubenstein" sends a terrible message. I'm hoping that was accidental, and will be redacted. It's IMHO contrary to some very important wiki guidelines, and is precisely what non-sysops say on a regular basis when they see sysops covering each others' backs in questionable circumstances.

Incidentally, Slrubenstein and I aren’t having any problems anymore, so the specifics of our past conflict isn’t relevant here. It’s Guy’s attitude about these types of conflicts that I have a problem with. Do you disagree with what Epeefleche said in her comment, as well as with the other four admins who expressed the same opinion there? --Captain Occam (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If the admin who decides this is sensible, I hope that means they'll base their decision about this on the evidence that's been provided here. --Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has over 3 million articles, so the fact that some editors have taken interest in only one controversial topic and nothing else for about 7 months is intellectually unhealthy and quite depressing. The typical Wikipedian edits articles because he or she is curious about a certain topic or would like to share his or her knowledge with the rest of the world. OTOH, a small minority of wikipedians edit articles because they want to advocate a certain POV. The topic of race and intelligence is a small part of a number of larger topics. The "race" part of the controversy is a sub-topic of anthropology and sociology, both of which are well established mainstream disciplines. If these SPAs were just curious about the subject of race and intelligence, then I would expect them to be curious about other topics in anthropology and sociology. Unfortunately, based on their editing history, I see little or no interest coming from these SPA in these subjects. They will only take an interest in these areas if it is somehow relevant to the Race and intelligence controversy.

The "intelligence" part of the controversy is also just a small part of the broader study of intelligence. If one were just curious about the R/I controversy, then I would expect them to be curious about other aspects of intelligence. There are subjects such as cognitive science, neurobiology, artificial intelligence or the evolution of human intelligence. One might even have an interest in animal intelligence. All these are fascinating subjects that editors can contribute to and they also have a non-confrontational nature. Unfortunately, our SPAs are not interested in these subjects, they are only interested in those aspects of intelligence that can be used to argue for race differences and nothing else.

The fact that some of these SPAs have zoomed in like a laser beam on the race and intelligence controversy, and shut their eyes to all the other interesting stuff on wikipedia, leads me to believe that they are using Wikipedia as vehicle to advocate certain points of view. Since they are not adding value to other articles and are draining resources by dragging out this controversy, one must question whether some or all of these SPAs are a net plus for the project. I think topic bans would definitely help determine this. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, I have a problem with you saying that I’m only here to advocate the hereditarian point of view. You’re the person who asked me to add more information to the article about environmental influences on IQ, and to change the titles of the sections in order to be less similar to the section headings used by Jensen and Rushton, and I spent quite a while at your request doing both of those things. I’ve made every effort to fix the NPOV concerns you were raising with the article, yet you’ve never acknowledged this at all, and now here you are accusing me of only being interested in advocating the point of view you disagree with. Do the efforts I’ve made to improve the article in the ways you wanted it to be improved mean nothing to you?

I guess I should also address your other point, about why I haven’t been editing the other articles you mentioned, although I’ve explained this before. Probably because of their non-controversial nature, there’s very little I can see about any of those articles that needs to be improved. The reason I’ve been attracted to the race and intelligence article, as well as (in the past) to other controversial articles such as Race and crime in the United States, is because these articles had much more blatant problems that I felt like I could improve. In the case of Race and crime in the United States, I don’t think anyone argues with the fact that I've done that—before I and Varoon Arya became involved in this article, it was just a redirect to Anthropological criminology, in contrast to what it is now.--Captain Occam (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wapondaponda's dissatisfaction may be related to this. It should be noted that after presentation his outline was expanded and modified to become more similar to Aryaman's, especially his copying of the 'variables potentially affecting intelligence' organization. If I can be blunt, I find it disgusting that he now has the audacity to claim that the article would have been in a better condition without Aryaman, Ludwig, Occam, DJ, et al, after displaying his inability to cope with the subject. mikemikev (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My posting is not about any single incident, edit to the article, or any one of the several threads that have been posted to the various talk pages. It is about the fact that a few of you editors have not been editing other articles and the only other articles that you edit are race-related, and your overall point of view in all of them is the same. It is legitimate to question, whether this is all you have to offer for the encyclopedia. What has come along with your editing, has been serial edit warring, incivility and a general hostile atmosphere. If two articles is all you have to show for it, then is it all worth it. Whatever material is present in the current article race and intelligence was at some time present in previous versions. In fact a lot of material is still from the pre-mediation version. So we have spent six months, and we still have a lot of the same old material. It is pretty clear, that some editors would have no problem going on for another six months "mentally masturbating" (to use a phrase I encountered on Wikipedia) over recycled race and intelligence arguments. The community will have to decide whether this time being spent is worthwhile. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Two articles isn’t all I have to show for it; I was just mentioning another one that I thought had benefited an especially large amount. Other articles that this group of editors has improved are Snyderman and Rothman (study) (Improved mostly by Varoon Arya), Race and genetics (Improved mostly by David.Kane), and J. Philippe Rushton, which I discussed with other editors at the BLP noticeboard, eventually resulting other editors removing several pieces of material that were cited to unpublished sources. One other article I’ve improved myself is the one about Rushton’s book Race, Evolution, and Behavior, based on instructions I received from an administrator at the NPOV noticeboard: “The article is a horrible quotefarm of criticism which is non-encyclopedic. Re-write the article to paraphrase the notable claims/sections of the book and then have a relatively short (certainly no longer than the summary section) section of criticism, including only the most notable critiques and maybe one or two quotes of a sentence or two each. The article as it is written looks like the authors found every quote about the book they could and included them all in the article.” As a result of my involvement in the article, I think this problem is fixed now.

There may be other articles related to these topics that we’ve improved also, and I’m just not thinking of them right now.

I know this is a kind of narrow focus, which is why I’ve never really argued with the claim that I’ve been an SPA for most of the past year. (Although I’ve been trying to become less of one in response to Mathsci’s previous AN/I thread, hence my involvement in the William Beebe article.) But the important point about all of this is that by the standards of the rest of the community, these articles are being improved. Several users have pointed out how much more stable the race and intelligence article is now than it has been at any other point since 2006; I don’t think it can seriously be argued that this isn’t a positive change. The improvements to the Race and crime article and the one about Rushton’s book are even more obvious, and have received encouragement from uninvolved users who had a problem with the states these articles were in before we became involved in them, and were glad that someone was finally doing something about the problems that had plagued these articles for months or years. In some cases, this has required disentangling unresolved conflicts that had existed over the articles for a similar amount of time, so some amount of conflict probably couldn’t have been avoided in the process of improving them. But if the overall effect has been to make the articles more encyclopedic, which I think it clearly has, I don’t think it should be difficult to answer the question of whether the time we’ve spent on them was worthwhile. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The essential content on all these articles is pretty much the same. It is pretty clear that your favorite topics are divisive, so one would ask why an editor only focuses on divisive articles. Being an SPA is not a policy violation, so despite numerous complaints, you can continue being one. Most editors use Wikipedia to learn about stuff they didn't know beforehand and to share their knowledge. While every editor may have a few favorite topics and articles, the ideal editors try to get out of their comfort zone, and read or edit subjects outside of their preferred topics. There is no requirement that all editors fit the ideal model, so SPA editing isn't prohibited. Nonetheless, SPA editing isn't ideal, and more so in this case because you have chosen only to edit polarizing and emotionally charged articles. One could easily interpret this as using wikipedia as a soapbox or as a vehicle for advocacy. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I already told you why I tend to focus on articles that are divisive: it’s because these tend to be the articles that are most in need of improvement. It’s the same reason why I got involved in the William Beebe article—before I became involved in it, it was very poorly-written for an article about such an important naturalist, and it still could benefit from some additional improvement. If I find any other articles about topics I’m knowledgeable about that need a similar amount of improvement, whether they’re controversial or not, I’ll see if I can improve them also.

I think the difference between what I’ve been doing and actual soapboxing / advocacy is that rather than just trying to introduce my personal viewpoint into the articles, I’ve been working to bring them more into compliance with Wikipedia’s standards. And sometimes this involves writing for the opponent, as I did in the race and intelligence article at your request. I think that actual soapboxing and writing for the opponent are more or less polar opposites of one another. You seem to have very little objection to my edits themselves, and only with the selection of articles that I edit, so are you willing to acknowledge that soapboxing / advocacy is not what I’ve been doing on these articles?

Why this matters

I’m getting ready to go offline for a while (not even I can participate in these threads 24/7), but before I do there’s something else I think it’s important to explain. I want to make sure other people understand why I have such a problem with the idea of topic bans for myself and the other users they’ve been suggested for, and have been putting forth so much effort to argue against this idea. The reason isn’t because my involvement in the articles matters for its own sake. It’s because a topic ban for the users being discussed here would eliminate around two-thirds of the editors who were involved in the mediation case for the race and intelligence article. Varoon Arya, Mikemikev, David.Kane, DJ, Ludwigs2 and I were all present for either all of the mediation, or all of the second half (under Ludwig as mediator) when we reached all of our resolutions about the article. If all of these users are banned, the only remaining people currently involved in the article who were there for the mediation would be Aprock, Slrubenstein and Muntuwandi.

One consequence of a topic ban for all of us is that it would probably make it impossible to implement the rest of the changes to the race and intelligence article that were agreed on during mediation, and haven’t made yet. The most significant change we still need to make is one that there was still a fair amount of dispute over when mediation ended, and a topic ban would eliminate all of the people who were trying to resolve this dispute the last time it was discussed (during mediation). That isn’t the most significant problem, though.

The most significant problem is that with most of the mediation’s participants banned, there would be very little to prevent the structure that we resolved during mediation from gradually being undone. New users who become involved in the article are not going to be familiar with what we resolved in mediation, and I don’t think the three mediation participants that would be left would be enough to make sure newcomers respect the mediation’s conclusions. The version of the article produced (or more accurately, being produced) by mediation is something that almost everyone has been able to be satisfied with, regardless of which viewpoint they take about this topic, which is a significant improvement over anything that’s been accomplished with this article in the past three years. I would hope that even those of you who support topic bans can understand why I would consider it a major loss for that accomplishment to be discarded, especially after it took six months for us to reach it, and why I would be trying my utmost to prevent something that’s likely to lead to this result. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

More disruption by Mikemikev

• Mikemikev (talk · contribs)

This editor, a single person account, has now left this threat on my talk page.[11] This is was his 294th edit to wikipedia.Mathsci (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've been involved with wikipedia since 2004 (when I created the dry distillation article). I hadn't created an account then. I have one account, I've always had one account, and my record is absolutely clean.

I'm involved here because of POV violations I've noticed in this sensitive topic, which you continue to perpetrate. Rather than address this serious issue, you just repeat "SPA!, SPA!", like a mantra, despite this not being a crime in the absence of policy violation. You can't use your editing record as an excuse for POV violations. I am saddened that administrators here seem to disagree.

And it's a warning. Maybe if you had shown me the same courtesy you wouldn't have been laughed off WQA. mikemikev (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It is your current editing patterns that are being looked at [12]. That you edited in 2004 using IPs 139.184.30.19 and 139.184.30.18 is almost meaningless (these are surely public IPs at the University of Sussex, which could be used by any undergraduate there). At this stage, it might be a good idea to read carefully what administrators have been writing rather than giving the appearance of harrassing and bullying an editor like me. Thank you, Mathsci (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bingo! I was an undergrad at Sussex. I had the pleasure of studying evolutionary genetics under John Maynard Smith, while pursuing my major of AI. Sadly I had to leave the beautiful Sussex countryside for postgrad study at UCL. But isn't tracing my IP and wikiliking to it's origin frowned upon? I personally have no problem with it though. mikemikev (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Tracing your IP? You've been openly advertising it to try to prove that you are not an SPA. You have now started reverting Slimvirgin's edits with strange edit summaries.[13] If you've been editing here since 2004, surely you must realize that this is not a sensible way to proceed. Have you thought of discussing things with Slimvirgin on her talk page or the article talk page, if you disagree with her? Mathsci (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. Have you ever thought about not being a dick? mikemikev (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Rehashing

A lot of the information being discussed in this section was already discussed on this page recently: [14]. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI complaints about Mathsci

I have looked through the ANI archives and found some of the previous complaints about User:Mathsci: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as a matter of information, a checkuser has been asked to check your account against that of Jagz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or other banned users/sockpuppeteers. Just to let you know, in case you get too carried away with yourself. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Now that's what I call a questionable edit history. mikemikev (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it? Going back to 2007. One of those reporting me was blocked for trying to out me. Another has been banned for a year because of a recent ArbCom case. Another was found responsible for wikihounding me and continued to do this under a new account name: he has stopped doing so as a result of the off-wiki intervention of a member of ArbCom. Yet another was blocked as the returning sockpuppet of a banned user. One or two complaints from editors POV-pushing on Ethnic groups of Europe. I'm surprised I haven't been permanently banned. Mathsci (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban?

Looking above it would seem my proposal for a topic ban on SPA has received some support. Is now the time to hammer out the details? Justin talk 13:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You could "hammer out some details" (why not a shred of evidence to garnish), or you could wait until next week when Mathsci and his nepotistic buddies embarassingly clog up ANI with this crap again. Did it occur to you that the reason you seem to have 'support' is that all of the respectable admins no'ed this last week? What a clown show! mikemikev (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest a topic ban on all articles to do with Race. Perhaps Category:Race would cover it. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Since there has been no evidence presented that any of Wikipedia's policies are being broken, it's not unreasonable to believe that the topic ban supporters are engaging in POV-pushing. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, it is unreasonable. The mediation was and has been (since about a week in) has been improper, and a proper remedy to that is to revert the article to a stable status before the mediation started. Individual edits should then be discussed. As for MathSci; his conduct has been someone questionable, but the edits of (most of the) hereditarian editors are clear NPOV violations, including the views of an editor who claims to be an expert as an expert in determining which views are mainstream is inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  My comments to that effect on the mediation page were rejected as being an attack on the editor in question. That was also clearly inappropriate; I was attacking the credentials of the expert that the editor was quoting; the fact that they seem to be the same person, according to the "mediator" and the editor in question, is irrelevant.

  However, it is too early to discuss details, as there isn't yet consensus that a topic ban is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As explained here[25], there is a Mediation Cabal and a Mediation Committee. If the mediation that was performed under the Mediation Cabal was insufficient, you might try the Mediation Committee. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm completely confused, there was both medcab and formal medcom mediation in the case, and both failed. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this process is very confused. There was a lengthy medbab on race and intelligence which we had to run effectively on our own and which stopped an edit war and achieved a new stable state in the article. The current conflict is at History of the race and intelligence controversy, which has had no dispute resolution except this thread, my attempt to get policy clarification from the reliable sources noticeboard [26], and the work of Slrubenstein to bring experienced editors to the talk page. A quick look at the history of the talk pages of each article will [27] [28] give a sense of what's actually going on. --DJ (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• I should add that I'm not the only one who as noticed that if Captain Occam and Mathsci can work together, they make great progress (from talk:race and intelligence): [29] I appreciate Captain Occam's work, and, as he anticipated, mathSci's improvements. I think the current version (with MathSci's improvements) has a better (more inclusive, and also, I think a problem-oriented rather than place-oriented communicates the real issue more clearly) title to the section on comparative data, and I also think his improvement is to provide more context, it really shows the global dimensions and provides more information. With MathSci's improvements to Captain Occam's work, I think we are making real progress. Captain Occam, thanks for inviting people to improve on your work. That is exemplary editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC) --DJ (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• DJ, I don't think it makes sense to treat incidents between the same editors in the two closely related articles as being separate disputes. 120 Volt Monkey, "Since there has been no evidence presented that any of Wikipedia's policies are being broken" is both false (some evidence was presented, just nowhere near enough for traditional DR to sanction someone with) and not entirely relevant (a situation can become intractable and require intervention even if no policies are broken). Note that the proposed restriction is from around 0.0001% of the site. While there isn't a mathematical relationship like "restricting someone from 0.0001% of the site requires 0.0001% as much misconduct as it takes to ban them from the entire site", I hope you can understand why the two standards might not be the same. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• That would be true except the nature of the content disputes, which are temporally separated by months, appear to be quite different. At race and intelligence the issues related to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, which aren't a concern at History of the race and intelligence controversy. --DJ (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy it looks like exactly those same issues are in dispute, and anyway a lot of this is a personality conflict between editors, which are the same across both articles. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I am an SPA, as I was asked to come here to provide opinions on the article, since I have done some work in the area. I personally don't feel any of the editors on this article should be banned. I believe this about both camps (the pro IQers and the environmentalists). To date, this is the best article I've seen on a reputable site that deals with the topic (this could be like being the tallest midget though as most articles on this are utter crap).

Both sides are needed or this will quickly devolve into the typical crap article on the topic. If better ground rules could be set on reverting and discussing stuff first, and not posting unless some level of consensus is reached, the article could be completed. Progress made since mediation has been immense and all of the current editors working on this should be thanked rather than banned. Time spent complaining here seems better served editing the article-Bpesta22 (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There are not two camps as you claim. Slimvirgin, Maunus, Slrubenstein and I are not Marxists/environmentalists, even if editors like you claim so. We are simply editors editing according to wikipedia policies. However Captain Occam, Distributivejustice and Mikemikev (and possibly others) are WP:Civil POV pushing WP:SPAs. Their editing is becoming increasingly disruptive (see below). Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

1-revert limit

I recommend a 1-revert limit on race-related articles. This will force dispute resolution rather than allowing editors to make a WP:POINT by reverting each other multiple times. If multiple editors are reverting one another, then lock the page. --DJ (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I approve of this suggestion. It would bring all of the same benefits that are being hoped for from topic bans, but without the cost of losing most of the editors who participated in mediation, and therefore causing the stability we achieved in mediation to risk being lost. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of there having been any recent history of actual revert warring on any significant scale in these articles, of the sort that 1RR would help with. The conflict has been of a different nature. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

POV fork created by SPA

• How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?
• Distributivejustice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

No administrators have so far noted any inapproriate editing or anything that breaks WP editing policy. The two SPAs above did propose a POV-fork solely on Arthur Jensen's article on the talk page of the history (diffs on request):

I suggest creating an article called How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? and refactoring the NPOV problem out of this article. If that doesn't work, I recommend moving as much as possible to Arthur_Jensen#IQ_and_academic_achievement. --DJ (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think creating an article here about Jensen’s 1969 monograph would be a very good idea. It wouldn’t fix all of the NPOV issues I’ve raised with this article, but his monograph is definitely notable enough to deserve its own article at Wikipedia. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, and independently of these comments, I added a detailed summary of Jensen's article from a secondary soure while brushing up on my Latin skills on Triumphs of Caesar [30]. But speaking of Latin and papal bulls, that reminds me of something I almost forgot: the Aix-St Louis wiki meetup is due to happen in the next few hours, possibly at lunchtime!! There will be a ceremonial exchange of honorary barnstars, no extra credit for parents present :) Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• The POV-fork has now been created as threatened, using only material I wrote myself, summarising the meticulously annotated book of Adrian Wooldridge - without any edit history. This is probably not a bad moment to institute topic bans. Writing a separate article on one of the most controversial articles in the history of 20th century psychology simply to push a point of view is out. The article should probably be speedy deleted by an administrator. No need for these SPAs to spread their disruption elsewhere on wikipedia, which seems to be their aim at present. Please can some administrator step in to stop this disruption? Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have added a speedy delete tag because the article has been created just using material Mathsci (talk · contribs) wrote yesterday and today, copy-pasted without its editing history, by Distibutivejustice. He should probably be blocked at this point. Mathsci (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed ANI ban for Mathsci

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

• Support - mikemikev (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Biting, assumptions of bad faith, and other assorted nonsense at AfD

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boba Phat (2nd nomination), several editors who should seriously know better (Milowent (talk · contribs) and MuZemike (talk · contribs) being the biggest offenders) have been calling the nominator, Biohazard388 (talk · contribs) a sockpuppet and automatically assuming bad faith from the moment the nomination began. Their only bases is that the AfD was Biohazard388's first edit. They have also accused two other SPAs, Rogueslade (talk · contribs) and Mandoman89 (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets or meetpuppet without any evidence. This of course has erupted in a war of words between all the involved editors, and despite a warning to Milowent about assuming good faith and not biting the newbies, has shown any indication he will do so.[31] MuZemike has also indicated that he will not assume good faith either.[32] A sockpuppet case was opened and closed clear all three of the SPAs of the sockpuppetry charges[33] and there has been no evidence that any meetpuppetry is taking place. Now with the SPI closed, Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), who filed the SPI case,[34] is calling for the AfD to be closed as no consensus even though the discussion has only been going on for two days.[35]

On the other end, I've warned Rogueslade about making personal attacks,[36] which he has since apologized for.[37]

What is needed is an admin to come in and start laying down the law about assumptions of bad faith accusations others of sock/meet puppetry without any evidence and to lay off the personal attacks on other editors. I've already attempted to move some of the comments about other editors to the AfD's talk page earlier, but things are still out of hand. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Even though I know I may be biased, as I am one of the "victims" of these users and this unusual suspect behavior, I must concur with Farix. I am a member on several other wikis, and in one case, an administrator. This is my first time attempting the "Big leagues" of Wikipedia.org, and I have been VERY surprised at the seeming amount of conspiracy-jockying that MuZemike and Milowent have brought to the table. They seem to assume Bad Faith, and have not slowed down since the beginning. Milowent has recently started to contribute to the discussion on the aforementioned AfD. This behavior has cause the discussion on the AfD in question to become somewhat diluted. Much of the discussion (contributed by these users) has seemed to be in attempt to draw attention away from the articles AfD, or at least to hinder the discussion. If possible, it would be nice to see an Admin clean up the AfD so that discussion can continue smoothly and on track.Biohazard388 (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also, when the sockpuppet case WAS opened, the users seemingly protected the page, which did not allow the accused parties to add their defensive arguments and comments. This may be the norm, but not as far as I know. This seems to point to more Bad Faith. It might be nothing, but thought I'd add the idea for consideration.Biohazard388 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Come on people. Yes I was suspicious (and am still though without evidence, but I shall hold my personal opinions henceforth), but you are making a mountain out of a molehill. However, I pledge to cease and desist the use of any insinuations humorous or otherwise any further in that AfD. Boba Phat will have to fend for himself. Biohazard388 et al, I apologize for any offense I have caused, I suggest you do not became a regular editor on Encyclopedia Dramatica or whatever its called.--Milowent (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Accusing a nominator and several persons in an AFD of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, even after they have been conclusively demonstrated to be innocent of these charges, is poisoning the well. Nor did it even cross my mind that you were attempting to merely be "humorous." I think your initial suspicions were well-founded, certainly, but don't poison an AfD with these accusations, and know to drop them once they've been shown to be unfounded. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see how they have been conclusively proven innocent, they just haven't been proven guilty. Though I stand by all my edits, I have also apologized to Bioh. and I seem to think we can all move on now.--Milowent (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Milowent, I graciously accept your apologize. Please make sure to note that I had mentioned your coming around in a previous post here in this section. I agree that things seem to be going more smoothly since the Sockpuppet case ended. However, I must also agree that Admin intervention to clean up the AfD would be a good idea. I agree with both Farix and Ginsengbomb that the discussion has been harmed by several users. The discussion has suffered so far, due in part to users continuing discussion where it maybe shouldn't have been. An official cleanup from the staff would be a much appreciated effort, as far as I'm concerned. I'm completely on the side of being fair to the article's creator and the community at large. I'd like to see the discussion cleaned up and focused so that a clear consensus can be reached.Biohazard388 (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In their defense Bio, we did suspect something weird when you came and immediately nominated something for deletion. Although it is an odd first edit, there has been a sockpuppeter who has done exactly that. If you had mentioned that you are an admin on another Wikipedia, I'm sure we would have supported you. The page was protected because there was an attack by another user there and no one removed it because they didn't want to risk another attack. Personally, I was rooting for more socks to be bagged, and the checkuser actually changed the sockmaster of some of them to another user. All is well now and I'm sorry if we ever hurt you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Biohazard388 did not say he was an admin on another "Wikipedia", but on another "wiki", a generic term for any site which uses wiki software. If he's an admin on another Wikipedia, I'd suggest he should say what it is, because it's certainly not under this name, which is active only on en.wikipedia. [38]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Kevin, I completely understand where you are coming from. I realize the situation seemed fishy at the time, and probably would have taken similar action. However, the discussion should have been kept consolidated at the Sockpuppet case's page, instead of overflowing into the AfD page. It also should have ended when the case was closed. Instead, it continued most thoroughly. As an example,MuZemike posted this post-sockpuppet case on the AfD discussion page: "Speedy keep – This is a clear bad-faith nomination by User:Biohazard388. If this isn't sock puppetry by those involved in the SPI, then this is clear meatpuppetry orchestrated by someone on the outside who is recruiting someone to propose deletion on Star Wars-related material on the behalf of Dalejenkins. –MuZemike {timestamp removed to prevent confusion}" This comment can be found on the aforementioned AfD. This is why I feel an admin should clear the page up a bit and try and make sure that the conspiracy theories end so discussion can continue unhindered. I don't have any harsh feelings towards anyone. I just want to make sure that the policies are followed and that we can have a concise discussion in the appropriate section.Biohazard388 (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – The SPI page was protected due to persistent vandalism by socks of GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs) who was recently causing massive SPI disruption. I have nothing else to say about this matter other than that I still reserve my suspicions as stated; nobody learns how to set up an AFD flawlessly upon their very first edits. –MuZemike 22:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: The reasoning behind the SPI lock makes sense. Concerning the AFD suspicions, I'd like to make it a point to say again, that I am a member of other Wikimedia projects and am fluent in Wiki coding. I also am able to venture forth on the site and find articles such as Articles for Deletion which makes the process quite easy to understand. Wikipedia editing is not just for the advanced and experienced users. It is also there for the daring one's that take it upon themselves to begin working on the site and are willing to read a "how to" article. Don't assume every "newbie" is a "noob". That is why we have rules such as Assume Good Faith.Biohazard388 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're right. There's AGF, and then there's not not making AGF into a suicide pact. That being said, I'm not infallible, and perhaps I have erred and was a bit biased since I thought I was so convinced since there were socks of this user up to two weeks ago who were still trying to nominate Star Wars-related stuff for deletion. Perhaps you came on at the wrong place at the wrong time, but that couldn't be helped. I'll just drop this right here and carry on. –MuZemike 22:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment: Thank you for your understanding, MuZemike. Would you be "for" having an admin come in and clean up the AfD so that we can proceed in discussing it thoroughly?Biohazard388 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Go ahead and have said admin hack away. I consider myself recused from the remainder of the deletion discussio here. –MuZemike 22:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment above stricken as there's a little more background, now. –MuZemike 22:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see that both editors have now appologize. However, I think it is imperative that they strike all sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry accusations as well as bad faith assumptions from their AfD comments. —Farix (t | c) 02:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be very good, especially since people are making more accusations based on those prior comments, and this bad faith toward the nominator seems to be influencing the deletion discussion, as they are suggesting that the article be kept solely because they don't trust the nominator, not on the merits of the article itself. -- Atama頭 16:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand why the SPI page was protected. I know MuZemike said it was because of vandalism by GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs), but if you click that user's contribs you'll see it last edited January 4, 2010. Why is mike still concerned about vandalism?? The page was protected April 25, 2010, with no sign of vandalism in the history. I would hope that the protection wasn't to stifle the accused's ability to defend itself, but unless there's more to the story, that's how it looks. I guess I didn't look closely:there's vandalism of an odd sort (copying back archives). II | (t - c) 05:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Biting, Assumption of Bad Faith and othe assorted nonsense at ANI

This thread is nonsense. there were clear reasons that allowed for a sockpuppetry case. There are three great reasons to file a sock puppet case, One the names and MO matched Dale Jenkins. Two neither of these accounts have done anything other then vote delete, [[39]] [[40]]. Yes in the end a couple weren't socks of Dale Jenkins. That leaves meat-puppetry or truly uninvolved editors that created a account just to vote delete in an afd. I would ask how many votes in the last ten actually allude to sockpuppetry concerns? 90 percent of all delete opinions have been issues with the sourcing or lack thereof of notability. Either way none of this required a report at ANI. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• As one of the editors in question, I feel that there was indeed ample reason for this thread in the ANI. Yes, there was ample evidence for an investigation into sockpuppetry. I don't contend that, but after the case was closed and decided that none of us have anything to do with this Dale Jenkins character, individuals continued to attack us. Perhaps you missed the comments that were deleted, but they continued to make every effort to have the AfD pulled, not because of evidence supporting the article, but by making direct attacks on the original nominator and a couple others, myself included. I can't speak for the others, but I have in fact made several prior edits as an anonymous user. Unless you possess the capability to track edits by IP address, you'll have to take my word on that. It was only when I saw the article in question, and chose to support the decision to delete it, that I felt it prudent to create a user account. I don't know if it is possible to vote in an AfD anonymously, but even if it is, I don't believe it would carry as much weight as from a registered user. My having a new user name, and indeed the nominator and any others having new user names, was no reason for the other editors, a specific two or three, to continually attack us and make repeated Bad Faith accusations after we were proven to have nothing to do with Dale Jenkins or one another. Rogueslade (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the editing pattern it makes perfect sense. Like I said you weren't proved to be his sosck, that leaves two other choices Meatpuppet or uninvolved, either way this thread is a monstrous waste of community time and effort. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying you condone their continual slanderous comments? The only waste of time was the numerous accusations of bad faith and continued comments on meatpuppetry. If they were so concerned, it should have been brought up to an admin, not reiterated over and over again in the AfD discussion.Rogueslade (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if you look they only spoke their suspicions. I am the one who actually filed a sockpuppet case and as I said the sockpuppet investigation only conclusively proves you aren't Dale Jenkins. I am actaully glad the turn that afd is taking though, i thought that article should've been deleted a while ago Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Zlykinskyja's actions on Murder of Meredith Kercher

Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs) is quite clearly an spa account, with whom I seem unable to have a calm and productive discussion. She apparently always starts assuming that those who do not agree with her are trying to censor her, or they are vandals who want to defame Knox and Sollecito. I would kindly ask you to read her latest edits, especially those here.

Here, by the way, you can see a sample of personal attacks and threats: edit summary, [41], [42], threat?, edit summary, edit summary, [43], threat, [44], edit summary, [45], [46], [47], edit summary, edit summary, [48], [49], [50], [51].

Could you please do something? We had a go at informal mediation, but she called it off, after being the one who had filed the request for it. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Salvio. I've tried (unsuccesfully) to explain our policies to the user but their view is quite clearly that "their" information must be included in the article regardless. Their view appears to be that mediation is fine as long as it reaches the same conclusion as them, and when it didn't, they said "fine, mediate with yourself". The article is already a horrible sprawling mess and the main issue is this user, for whom "NPOV" appears to equal "my POV". Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment: I had not yet seen this edit... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sake - I hadn't seen that either. I'm not suggesting that's an NLT issue, but the language clearly indicates someone who's not here to edit collegially. I think we'd have to be looking at some sort of article restriction here? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio please stop with this harassment by you and your cohorts (including Black Kite) of repeatedly filing complaints and making personal attacks against me. The bullying going on with this article is simply ridiculous. I have repeatedly raised the issue with the bullying on this article and it just gets ignored, unless it is directed at the pro-guilt side of the case. If the insults and bullying are directed at the non-pro-guilt side of the case it gets ignored. This harassment effort is clearly intended to drive me, the sole remaining non-pro-guilt editor, off of the article, along with these efforts to delete much of my work.

As for the issue with the mediator, I felt uncomfortable with his position that all statements by lawyers are untrustworthy and should not be included in the article. I felt that showed a bias against allowing the views of the lawyers into the article, which would interfere with the inclusion of the views of the defense attornies. That is a perfectly legitimate concern of mediator bias. So I decided that I did not want to use him as the mediator, but I was reconsidering that. In the meantime, I have been hit with all kinds of insults and personal attacks just because I said did not want to proceed with him as the mediator. Because the administrators on here have NOT helped at all, and the mediator did not seem unbiased, I have felt that my only recourse is to contact someone higher up at the Wikipedia Foundation. That is not my first choice, but SOMEONE has to help with these BLP and NPOV issues that could result in defamation against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

At the same time there is a focus on deleting my hard work on this article. The pro-guilt editors keep removing, reverting, deleting my work, as the sole remaining person on the other side. The other editor who was on my side apparently gave up on the article today, feeling completely defeated and driven out. I don't have time now to post diffs or further discussion, but can do so tomorrow.

This follows the recent incident where I was called a "cunt" and other foul language was used and nothing was done against that person. Also someone recently posted a false "BREAKING NEWS" report that Amanda Knox, the defendant they keep trying to paint in a bad light, committed suicide. That false report was left as a "breaking news" headline at the top of the article for two hours and no one did anything about it. The information spread to the Newsweek site, as well as Zimbio and other places on the Internet. Nothing was done to the person who posted the false report. Then the other non-pro-guilt person posted a minor joking remark and was blocked for a day. He is so discouraged he probably will not be back. So it is just me left as the sole person raising the issues of BLP and NPOV seeking to have the defense views included, and not just the pro-guilt/prosecution views. But I would say that facing all this deletion of my work as the sole remaining person on the other side of the case is an impossible situation. There needs to be an administrator who will please stop the bullying and one sided-deletions going on with this article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite is NOT an impartial observer. He posts WITH the pro-guilt editors against me, so having me blocked or banned would help his cause. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that sums the problems up well, though not in the way the user probably intended. They admit to pushing a particular POV "non-pro-guilt editor" and sums up anyone who disagrees with them as a "pro-guilt" editor, despite the fact that (as the talkpage and article history shows clearly) that those editors are merely trying to ensure that the article conforms to our policies. Incidentally, I have edited the article precisely once (to fix a factual error), and I am categorised as having a POV. So the question is, in which direction do we go? Dispute resolution is clearly going to be useless here, so we are left with article enforcement or WP:RFC/U. Thoughts? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite, you have made your bias clear on the Talk page, including posting a personal attack against me, which I had to ask another administrator to have you remove. You would just love to eliminate the only editor left on the other side. But that is just so unfair and detrimental to Wikipedia to allow harassment against a minority view editor to remove that contrary view from the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying that you were unable to be neutral on this article was hardly a personal attack (especially as it's clearly true, as you're proving here). Nevertheless, far better than "eliminating" an editor here would be for that editor to at least attempt to work collegially with everyone else. However, you are so adamant that everything you put into the article is necessary, correct and needs to stay, and most things that other editors do is wrong, that it is impossible to do so at the moment. The article would improve far quicker with reasonable input from all interested editors. At the moment you are preventing that from happening by attempting to argue against everything that is being suggested, even when it has consensus from many editors. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that isn't what you said. The administator asked you to remove the language where you said words to the effect: you are so emotional you are incapable of NPOV editing, along with other personal remarks directed at me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That exactly what I said, and here's the diff - "It also appears clear from your emotive language that you aren't capable of taking a neutral viewpoint on this issue". Not a personal attack; I removed it only because it wasn't helpful. There weren't any other "personal remarks". Black Kite (t) (c) 00:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To deny there are two camps on this article, and have been for a long while, is ridiculous. There are editors who consistently edit in a manner tending to paint Amanda Knox and Raffaele as guilty of sexual assault and murder and delete anything that does not agree with that view. I have tried to include the minority view that they might be innocent, as they claim, but I am vastly outnumbered. Now, you try to eliminate me entirely. Now, once you succeed in harassing me off the article or getting me banned, the hundreds of hours I have put into this article in research and writing will all be deleted. That is the goal. And that is so unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty hard to be collegial when you are constantly harassed, insulted, attacked, sworn at, and these endless attempts by Salvio and crew to get me banned from the article. Yes, I am upset but how would you like being treated like this, and being all alone as the sole remaining minority editor. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the mediation, to put me up on charges over objecting to mediator bias is utterly ridiculous. The proposed informal mediator (who had no prior experience mediating) made repeated statements that lawyers are untrustworthy, that they do not tell the truth, that they are not truthful even when they express their opinions, so the views and opinions of the lawyers should not be included in the article. This injected a major stumbling block to including the defense side of the story, since the defense view could only come through the lawyers for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I felt that the position taken by the mediator was extreme, since there is no rule at Wikipedia saying that lawyers are so untrustworthy or dishonest that their opinions cannot be included in the article. I felt that this was a bias that would interfere with NPOV, so I did not want to start mediation with him in a few days as scheduled. However, he asked me to reconsider and think it over and I was doing that. These statements by Salvio and Black Kite implying or suggesting that mediation was tried and failed are false. The mediation had not yet started. It was expressly agreed that it would not start till April 30. So, I had to give notice prior to that day if I did not want to go forward. Furthermore, this informal mediator had never done mediation before, so I only provisionally agreed to try him out with the understanding that nothing would officially start till April 30. Given his extreme views on lawyers, and the importance of the views of the defense lawyers in the article, he did not seem the best choice to me as a mediator, but I was reconsidering. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You propose mediation, put it on hold, and then pull out, even though the mediator you balked at suggested a replacement mediator. Not very reasonable. You insist that all your edits stick and none of your wording be edited, in violation of WP:OWN. Not very reasonable. You extensively use non-English primary sources and you insist on including too much information, turning what should be a summary article of the information available in reliable secondary sources into an impenetrable blow-by-blow account. Every comment you leave on talk pages and noticeboards is a wall of text arguing that you are being persecuted and bullied, while providing scant support for this claim. Please stop this pattern. You cannot use Wikipedia to 'right great wrongs' - we are not investigative reporters and Wikipedia has no opinion. Your advocacy for Amanda Knox is appropriate for a blog or website, but not for a neutral encyclopedia article. Continuing to disrupt the editing of this article in this manner will end with you being blocked. You can avoid this by altering how you approach editing. Please take the advice I give to any single-purpose editor: edit articles on something totally unrelated for a while, to get a break and to better learn what it is to be a Wikipedian rather than an activist. Fences&Windows 01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• [ The main source is not a primary source; see subtopic below: #Micheli Judgment link is secondary source for Kercher case. -Wikid77 06:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ]

I have asked for help and you attack me like this, including many false accusations. When have I ever used non-English sources, maybe one or two out of hundreds of sources that I have added? You accuse me of making up the claim that I am being treated badly, without even knowing the facts? You suggest that I refused a substitute mediator unreasonably, when I stated that I was reconsidering the first person? You say that I unreasonably refuse to allow my work to be edited, when many hundreds of my edits have been removed, likely more than any other editor on that article has ever been subjected to. Yet there is no help for me, only blame. Over and over I have asked for help and it is ignored. I guess the only real recourse left is indeed as I thought. I will write to the Wikipedia Foundation about how this is being handled. I will set the whole thing out in detail for them to look at, and maybe then I can get some help. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you honestly where reconsidering the first person (Hipocrite), what exactly held you up to do so?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was very busy but trying to watch his edits. I saw that he defended me from a personal attack---the first person on this site ever to do that. I also saw that he wrote that he intended to demonstrate through his handling of issues that he and I really did not have major differences in views and that he in fact agreed with me on many things and we could work together well. So I wanted to watch, as he expressly suggested, and then make up my mind. But there has to be help somewhere, someone has to help with this distressing situation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"I saw that he defended me from a personal attack"

Believe it or not but he wasn't the first and won't be the last. That includes even me, like it or not: [52] [53] [54]

"So I wanted to watch, as he expressly suggested, and then make up my mind."

And what changed your mind (since you stated "I was reconsidering the first person.")? What exactly did he say or do after you withdrew from mediation that led you to dismiss your reconsideration?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to misrepresent the situation. I never dismissed my reconsideration. I just got tied up with this utter nonsense on here instead. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I.m.o., Zlykinskyja should take things less seriously. It is well known that Wikipedia is not so reliable when it comes to controversial non-scientific topics. So, spending a lot of much energy to make these types of articles better can be a complete waste of time. Let me give a typical example of this. Consider the case of Barry George. He was convicted for the murder of Jill Dando, but this conviction was later overturned. Now, all the relevant facts of this case that are known today were in the public domain many years ago.

It was a BBC documentary a long time ago that brought to light the facts that proved that the conviction was unsafe. The BBC handed the information they had over to the Criminal Cases Reviews Commisions and Barry was eventually acquitted. Now, if you look back at the editing history of the Barry George article, you see that you always have an article that is very biased toward the prosecution POV, right until the moment a court actually makes a ruling in favor of the defense position, even though those rulings were pure formalities.

Had the editors been better at writing a truly NPOV article, they could have written the article as it is now way back in 2006 when the BBC had made the documentary (except for the fact that Barry would still be in prison, of course). What you see instead is that while the evidence from the BBC documentary is edited in the article at the time, some time later other editors edit in some of the by then completely irrelevant arguments in favor of the prosecution. So, you get a "false neutrality" effect that is hard for any single editor to correct. Count Iblis (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a little soothing comfort. I can use some. I will check out the article you suggest tomorrow. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why has no one pointed Zlykinskyja to the No Legal Threat policy, and blocked her? Woogee (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Because Zlykinskyja's explanations of the actions are not actually legal threats, but rather issues of policies such as WP:Wikihounding, or keeping the article neutral, per WP:NPOV. The basic intent was to establish some article-specific guidelines, as to how the suspects would be labeled (hint: not as "the 3 killers"), and include the Italian legal status that Knox/Sollecito are not jailed for the verdict (while on appeal still "presumed innocent") but perhaps as flight risks or such. Those would be "rules of procedure" for editing the article, as a more advanced issue than just following the British English spellings. Perhaps an attorney at the Wikimedia Foundation could help establish a policy that allows editors to set warnings, linked to an article tag-box, as to which "hot-button" phrases would be designated from exclusion in an article. I think it would be great to get some direct input, from Wikimedia, as to what wording to follow (or are the policies sufficient). For example, excluding the term "gang rapists" for 3 people not even proven to have met together previously. Such a list of ground rules would be documented, so that other editors, coming to an article, would get a summary of do-and-don't actions that apply. Perhaps this might become a common practice as subpage "/rules" for each affected article "Talk:ArticleX/rules". Please don't think that anyone is intending to sue Wikipedia, but just help to improve the rules about neutral wording. Does that seem clear? -Wikid77 06:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I will refer this matter to the attorneys at the Wikipedia Foundation is not a legal threat? Woogee (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, because you can't threaten Wikipedia with Wikipedia's attorneys. Abductive (reasoning) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Kind of resembles a legal threat towards some of the editors though. Might not violate the letter of the policy, but sure sounds like it's flirting with it in spirit. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't, although if you put it in perspective with this clear legal thread they made here narrows the interpretation.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A legal threat means to threaten to take legal action, such as suing Wikipedia or suing someone. Saying you are going to file a complaint with a higher-up person at Wikipedia or write a letter so that some of the issues can be addressed is not a legal threat. It is not an intention to sue anyone, but to provide notice of the problem to those who have the knowledge and abilty to solve a problem that is not otherwise being correctly addressed. That is all that was intended. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That's against policy as well, I believe. If you don't agree with a decision, you try to shift consensus so that your preferred version will prevail. You most definitely do not go shopping for a sympathetic ear. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

collapse as off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Micheli Judgment link is secondary source for Kercher case 29-Apr-2010: The incident above has claimed excessive use of "non-English primary sources". However, this is a reminder that the huge Italian text, used as a reference for the Micheli Judgment, is a secondary source as merely a summary (though huge), at website www.Penale.it, of the Judge Paolo Micheli's court document, for the first trial. Several editors have mistakenly thought it was a primary source, because it is so large and contains many details from the original text. By extensively quoting from that one source, the article text avoids WP:SYNTH issues, because it includes both testimonies and forensic evidence, combined with the judge's conclusions (not WP:OR original research). The reference has been listed, in the article, as: "Judgement 28.10.2008", Dr. Paolo Micheli, dep. 2009-01-26, Court of Perugia Italy, trial of Rudy Hermann Guede, (Google Translation, Italian to English) Translate.google.com, Italian webpage: Penale.it. Retrieved 2009-12-11. In fact, I think that document provides the only clear explanation of the Kercher murder, concluded at trial: the first suspect, at trial, claimed that he did not stab Kercher, but rather emerged from a bathroom, crossed the house, and scuffled with the knifer. But he claimed that Kercher was near death, so he fled, leaving her bleeding, fully clothed, with the duvet bedspread and pillow on the bed. Forensic evidence (in same report) indicated that his blood palm print and Nike basketball shoe-prints where on that same pillow beneath the undressed body, while his DNA in large amounts was found on the removed bra (Italian: reggiseno) and severed bra strap found near the body. The report noted, in Italian, the suspect's claims versus the evidence: "senza tuttavia spiegare come mai una sua impronta si trovasse proprio sul cuscino sotto il cadavere, quando egli ricordava il cuscino regolarmente sopra il letto,..."  ("without explaining why his footprint is just under the corpse on the pillow, when he remembered the regular pillow on the bed"). The crime was considered to be a stabbing, followed some time later (blood spots had dried), by returning and undressing the body, and moving it onto the bed pillow on the floor (with his blood palm print & shoe-prints there). The shoe package was found at the suspect's residence, and he admitted to wearing those shoes ("Nike Outbreak 2, size 11" - Italian: misura 11 ) during the murder. No other source (in English) has provided that level of detail to explain the pillow and shoes in the murder, which occurred, and was tried in Perugia, Italy. Hence, the use of that source written in Italian. In that gigantic summary document, many sections have been abridged by indicating ellipsis by 2-dot marks "(..)" in many portions of the text. Some of the omitted details are forensic measurements that pinpoint items in a room. The copyright (at bottom) is: © 2006 Copyright Penale.it - SLM - Nyberg Srl 1999-2006 Tutti i diritti riservati (English: All rights reserved) The actual Micheli Judgment "Motivazioni sentenza per Rudy Guede" (the primary source) is not referenced in the article, as one of the many key details not yet included in the text (Note: in Italian titles, typically only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized). Again, the article uses a secondary source (not a primary source) summarizing, on an Italian website, the much larger Micheli Judgment document. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Random section break 1

Could we please concentrate on the issue at hand (namely Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs)'s behaviour)? I think we really need someone to step in: take a look at her edits and her edit summaries. It's not a matter of content, it's a matter of uncollegial demeanour. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 09:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not at all appropriate for one of the feuding editor's, a non-administrator, to remove another editor's comments here as Quantpole did, by placing Wikid's comments in a hat. Wikid was responding to the erroneous claim that I had used non-English sources extensively and inappropriately. Only an administrator should remove or enclose an editor's comments on this Board. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If an administrator believes that Wikid77's comments are relevant to the discussion here they are more than welcome to un-hat. Quantpole (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, looking at the editing page, Salvio has characterized me in his last edit as a "vandal". That could not be more untrue. I have spent hundreds of hours researching and writing and trying to do a good job, despite being subjected to a great deal of harassment while simply trying to participate as a minority editor. I have been attacked over and over, and my work has been deleted amd reverted over and over, even while I was simply in the act of typing my edits into the article. Literally, my very legitimate edits have been deleted as I was typing them! So, there needs to be a consideration of the actions of Salvio and his cohorts towards me, not just a consideration of my very distressed responses to the abuses that have been going on. To say my responses have not been "congenial", while not looking at how I have been treated, is unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Never written anywhere you're a vandal — which I do not think you are —. I used the only template I knew that would show your talk page and your contribs. It does not mean I think you're a vandal.

My opinion is that you're a POV-pushing, self-righteous WP:SPA, but not a vandal: you honestly believe you're trying to make the article better. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment. Even the comment of an entirely uninvolved admin inviting her to refactor a comment was seen as biased [55]. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio--you also push your POV that the prosecutor in this case could do no wrong. You allow no negative comments of him or the Italian legal system. You oppose any of my work that shows otherwise. Why is it wrongful POV for me to include doubts about the prosecution's case, but not inappropriate POV for you to oppose any material presenting such doubts? You paint me as a wrongdoer, but you are pushing a POV just as much. There are many questions and doubts about the behavior of the prosecutor presented in the US media. CBS News, 48 Hours TV Program, and others have repeatedly raised the issue that he has relied on a psychic, and has prosecuted over 20 people in the last two years for satanic or Black Mass type activities or efforts to cover that up. He is seriously doubted in the US media. He has been convicted of abuse of office, and has been barred for life from ever holding public office (pending appeal). But my efforts to include the views presented in the US media are opposed. You allow no questioning of his work. You want me silenced. I post as a minority editor, but the information I have tried to include is very much mainstream US media. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, no one should be typing comments in here in out of sequence--a type of refactoring-- and then failing to sign and date the post. That it very unfair because it makes it difficult for me to respond. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My opinion on the article can de found here:

My point is that, in doing this — I mean to try and write a NPOV article, which is what we are all trying to do, I think —, we may risk defaming the prosecution or the members of the Court of Assize, if we're not careful; this is a good example of what I mean: In terms of Mignini's stupidity, well that was clearly shown in the documentary. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

and

No, but that shows what you think of Mignini... In Italy, you can criticize, even harshly, a verdict (that's why our Judges publish written motivations: to allow for public review of their decisions), but not the Magistrates themselves as persons (attacks such as "mentally unstable" or whatever). I saw the documentary and I deemed it extremely POV. That's the prerogative of TLC, of course, but, still, I hope this article will be far more balanced. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's my only POV as far the article is concerned. I've already stated and iterate that, quite frankly, I do not really care whether or not Amanda Knox is guilty: I'll stick with whatever the Appellate Court will decide, since I think that they're in a better position than us to render a judgement based upon the evidence presented at trial. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that Zlykinskyja previously edited under a different username. I'm not quite sure why they did not get their old account renamed, but I do not think there is any impropriety going on, but it is relevant to see their full history of editing on this article. Please also note User talk:Zlykinskyja, which is full of bad faith characterisations from both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77. I agree with Salvio above in that the two users absolutely think they are the ones upholding NPOV, and cannot see any problems with their behaviour. I have only been involved in this subject for less than a week (after reviewing some images uploaded by Wikid77 that were up for deletion). It is very clear to me from that short time that both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 are treating this subject as a battlefield and respond to disagreement with accusations of non-neutrality. Though both users have edited other articles they have effectively become single purpose accounts regarding this issue. As can be seen from the aborted mediation, this issue is not going to be solved through discussion. I suggest that both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 be topic banned form this subject. Quantpole (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You claim Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 have become single-purpose accounts, when Zlykinskyja recently corrected another of the most important crime articles in modern British history, and I have modified templates that have drastically improved over 370,000 articles? You don't even have the slightest clue who you are talking about here. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• If Zlykinskyja = that user, they should definitely not be editing this article, as we've been here with exactly the same issues before ([56]). Their block log appears to show them being blocked for sockpuppetry mainly regarding the article as well (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikid77). Oh, and the userpage that said this. Now that probably tells you a lot.Black Kite (t) (c) 12:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid mentioning their name specifically given what they say on their userpage. I didn't think they were particularly trying to hide the link, given they explain the whole situation on the userpage (without specifically mentioning the other account, but it is obvious that it is the one they are talking about). I don't know the situation regarding any previous blocks so I didn't comment on that. Quantpole (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if it is proper for me to cast a !vote, since I'm not an admin and am an involved editor, but I strongly support Quantpole's proposal to topic ban at least Zlykinskyja... If it is not appropriate of me, please strike out my comment and accept my apology. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, editors with opposing POV on the article do not have a "vote" to ban another editor with opposing views, as is being attempted here. None of this should be going on. This is not fair or legitimate in the least. This is an attempt to utilize the administrative process to get some administrator who does not really know what is going on to do your dirty work for you so that you can silence my minority view on the article. This is an abuse of the process. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's actually an attempt to address a major problem for the article, which is that Zlykinskyja is not prepared to engage with other editors in the consensus process. I think if any administrator cares to look at the article talk page or any of the talk page archives, they will see this repeated pattern of behaviour. Instead of seeking consensus, Zlykinskyja prefers to add material to the article (which she probably genuinely believes improves its neutrality). Those who disagree, must either put up with this or enter into an edit war amid a torrent of accusations of censorship, bias and harrassment. Hence the abysmal state of the article. But I don't know what the solution is. If Zlykinskyja disagrees with this, perhaps she would provide a few diffs showing examples of cases where she has tried to engage in consensus-building, and I shall be pleased to admit I'm wrong. Bluewave (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a gang-up situation by the editors on this article who oppose me and Wikid77 because we hold minority views that differ from theirs. We are vastly outnumbered. Now they propose that we both be banned. It is part of an extremely upsetting pattern of harassment. While I do not agree with the views of these people on the article, I have never engaged in the type of horribly aggressive treatment against them that they have employed against me. These gang-ups have been all one-way, with them coming after me over and over in an attempt to get me banned or blocked to silence my views. This is not "consensus building", this is not "collegial". This is harassment. This is an aggressive attempt to silence minority views on the article. Removing the minority view will result in BLP violations and NPOV violations, since these people who are part of the gang-up all hold the same views on the case. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have called this situation to the attention of administrators over and over and no one will help. I posted on the ANI Board about this, and an administrator responded by typing out a string of laughter and then marking the matter as "Resolved". But no, it wasn't resolved. And the attacks against me just continue.

It is very disturbing that Black Kite very misleadingly posted a link to a complaint against me from 2009 which he suggests indicates that I had been reprimanded on this article before, and therefore I should "definitely not be editing this article." Yet he misleadingly did not link to the final version, which showed the OUTCOME of the complaint. The complaint was marked as closed by BigTimePeace as a "content dispute", not my misconduct:

Archiving. There does not seem to be a need for an administrative action here. The basic call has been for an admin to take a look at the situation and I am in the process of doing that and will soon post a note on the article talk page with some thoughts, but the core issue seems to be a content dispute (the exact nature is unclear) and some ill-advised comments by multiple parties. Further discussion here is not going to be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And that is indeed what it is, a "content dispute" but some very aggressive people have tried to make it very personal against me. They just WILL NOT focus on the real issues, the BLP and NPOV issues, and instead make it PERSONAL. It is very, very upsetting. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite also misleadingly links to a deleted version of the old account that I used. I deleted that, but he dug it up and did not note that it had been long ago deleted. As for the sock puppet issue, I explain that in detail on my current user page. It is there for anyone to see who wants to know the truth and not just concoct allegations and mislead people. As set forth in detail on my user page, I once attempted to change my name for legitimate privacy reasons but did not do it properly in that I failed to mark the old account as "Retired". So I was blocked since it looked like I was trying to have two accounts, when really I intended to switch to a new name. In any event, I paid my debt to society with a long block issued BEFORE I was even given the chance to explain what I was trying to do--a simple innocent name change. So I don't see how that is even relevant. I use only one account now and that old account has been officially retired for quite a while and has not been used since. So to bring that up is just to try and throw the kitchen sink at me and get me blocked for something that has no current relevancy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Here are some more recent ANI threads for more insight: [57] and [58].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There you tried very aggressively to get me banned or blocked after you WikiHounded me, including MAKING UP the false allegation that I had engaged in vandalism. There were no findings against me, and it later was established that your claim that I engaged in vandalism was baseless since it was a SOFTWARE problem. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• See also: edit warring I and edit warring II. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the edits concerning THE FALSE BREAKING NEWS REPORT OF THE SUICIDE OF AMANDA KNOX, that matter was so serious and so wrongful, that I will need to prepare a more detailed description of what happened there. But I will just say that posting a notice to correct the false report on Wikipedia of her suicide was justified under the circumstances. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

AND MY POV OPPONENTS CONTINUE WITH THEIR UNRELENTING GANG-UP!

Zlykinskyja posted one of a series of messages immediately after my post, so I'm taking it that this was at least partly aimed at me. So just to clear up a few misconceptions:

• I don't think I have ever said that Z should be banned. If I have, please provide a diff.
• I don't think I have ever engaged in "horribly aggressive treatment of Z. If I have, please provide a diff and I will apologise.
• Z says she has not engaged in such conduct against me. Well, what about accusing me of hypocricy,[59], effectively of being a sockpuppet of User:FormerIP,[60], anti-American editing,[61] accusations of POV editing,[62] and cherry picking facts,[63][64]not being fit to edit a particular section because of my POV edits,[65][66][67] "conspiring to obstruct another editor" and getting "meatpuppets to do my dirty work".[68]. To be fair, the worst of these kind of accusations have not been repeated recently.
• Yes there are different views about the case. But there are probably as many views as there are people - not just the two views that Z tries to use to characterize editors. The only way to reconcile these views is through consensus but that is virtually impossible when one very vocal and opinionated person will not engage in the consensus process.

Bluewave (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, you are engaging in deliberate tactics acting in concert with editors on the same side of the case with you, to try and personally attack me and paint this dispute as personal, when you know the REAL issue is that you and I write/edit in diametricaly opposed views on this case. You write/edit consistently in a pro-guilt manner, while I try to add the other side, to create NPOV balance. THAT is the real reason why you want me sanctioned or banned from the article. You want to eliminate your SOLE REMAINING POV opponent (considering that Wikid has indicated that he is too upset to continue on the article). And I find this all very low, and very dirty pool. This conduct in ganging up against an editor with whom you consistently hold opposing views on the CONTENT, and participating in these long sessions of personal attacks, and taking up hours and hours of my time with these attacks, is just a horrible way to treat another person. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My "tactics" were to point out some factual errors in a post which seemed to be trying to portray me as someone who has engaged in horribly aggressive treatment and Zlykinskyja as the blameless victim. I don't like being portrayed in that way, as I do not believe it is true (where are the diffs?). I also do not appreciate being described as writing in a "pro-guilt manner" (where are the diffs?). And I didn't ask for Z to be banned (and never have, as far as I remember), but actually said "I don't know what the solution is". And I still don't. Bluewave (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, it is plainly obvious what you are trying to do and I find this whole thing unbelievably vicious. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And as for Salvio's claim that he is not POV, I dispute that. He has said he does not want any criticisms of the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini or the Italian court that found Amanda Knox guilty. Yet, if the other side of the case, the non-pro-guilt side, is to be included in the article, it has to include information about the problems with the Prosecutor and how he handled the case. So Salvio basically is against including anything that might show how the case against Amanda Knox was defective, if it paints the prosecutor or court in a negative light. He is from Italy and he has made it clear that he is on the article to protect the image of the Italian prosecutor and the Italian court. But that is indeed POV editing on his part.Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I shan't even bother to respond to this umpteenth groundless and gratuitous personal attack.

That said, this thread risks becoming disjointed, just like the other one. Can please some uninvolved editors and/or admins step in and discuss how to deal with Zlykinskyja?

At the moment, a proposal was made to topic ban her and I wholeheartedly second it. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course Salvio wants me topic banned. According to Salvio, I can't even say anything on my own Talk page that is negative towards the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. He has repeatedly objected to the fact that I said on my Talk page that Mignini's investigation of a break-in was done "stupidly." So this he claims might be "defamation." Meanwhile the US media paints Mignini as a crazy person, and Mignini has been banned from holding public office for wiretapping journalists. But on Wikipedia, NO CRITICISM OF THE CASE/PROSECUTOR ALLOWED, not even on an editor's private Talk page. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages, including user's talkpages. That distinguish WP from blogs and forums.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you please stop posting out of sequence like you have been doing. Plus, it is ridiculous to say that making a slight criticism of a public figure is defamation or a violation of BLP. Meanwhile, people on here paint the accused as guilty of sexual assault and murder, when no one even know yet that that is true. So it sure seems like different standards are being used. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what CBS news has to say about Salvio's collegue, Giuliano Mignini, the one we can't say anything negative about on Wikipedia, according to Salvio: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20003238-504083.html#addcomm Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You said somethong else: In terms of Mignini's stupidity, well that was clearly shown in the documentary. And I objected about it only once (twice, if you count the fact I quoted myself here). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious disruptive SPA, indefinite topic ban. Why are we even allowing this to waste time here. Physchim62 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, the positions that you have taken repeatedly have made it clear that you don't want certain information coming out in the article that could be damaging to the Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. Yet in the views of the mainstream US media, there are VERY serious problems with the conduct of this prosecutor and his handling of the case, and VERY serious problems with this murder conviction of Amanda Knox. I am being obstructed and intimididated from trying to include what the US media is saying about this case and MOST of the people doing this are from Italy, England and other European countries (excluding Magnificient). Once you get me banned as you have been trying so hard to do, the mainstream US media view and the entire defense side of this article will be eliminated. THAT IS YOUR GOAL. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this is a waste of my time as well, but I have put a huge amount of time into this article and am being treated very badly. BOTH sides of the story should be looked at, not just tossed off like an old dish rag. No editor deserves treatment like that. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, seeing how much time I have put into this, and how over and over I have asked administrators for help, and have never received any, I will simply proceed to do what I should have done long ago, and contact the Wikipedia Main Office for help. Good day. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

• Rather than a complete topic ban, I think a one month restriction on editing the article itself could be applied while they're still being allowed to edit the article's talkpage which would give the editor the opportunity to work on and improve her lack of collaborating skills (which are w/o doubt apparent).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but given this editor's history of uncollegial behaviour, I think we would be facing the usual claims of bad faith and censorship, whenever we were to disagree with her on one of her proposals; quite frankly, I think it would actually make thing worse. My proposal is an indefinite topic ban: let her show that she can work and cooperate with other editors on less controversial issues and then, when the Wikipedia community is satisfied that she has learnt to accept opinions different from her own, this restriction will be lifted. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A complete MoMK topic ban would equal a general ban since they're only interest lays in that area and (I think) the result would be that they stop editing at all till the topic ban is lifted [We can assume that it would sooner or later] and thus there would be no learning experience for them and the same editor would probably resume with the same approach as they did in the past (since December last year, to be precise). I don't think that would help neither the article nor the editor. Any measures taken and remedies applied should be preventative, not punishment, and should be applied to prevent disruption of the project. I think my proposal does take those things into account and has potential to work as intended.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point and concur with you up to a point. My fear comes from the fact that this user does not appear to wish to change her behaviour (just take a look at what she's just written about me... ^{She has refactored her comment, so that it's no longer a personal attack 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)}) and that, so, we risk starting flame after flame on the talk page... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If they don't change their behavior a full topic ban can still be imposed if needed.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's give it a try. I change my !vote to match your proposal. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion! Bluewave (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin please step in and decide what should we do with Zlykinskyja? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think a ban from the article that originally caused the problem (indefinitely) would be apt. The user is, as said above, a self righteous, antagonistic proponent of THE TRUTH, with some highly combative manners when it comes to editing - however it seems that the primary cause is the content of the original article concerned. Is it not likely that constructive editing in other areas seen as uncontroversial by the user would take place after being banned from the article? If this fails, it only results in blocking for violating the ban, and that would suite the wants of some of the more hard-nosed proposals anyway. SGGH ^ping! 21:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never said that I am a proponent of the "truth", but only that both the prosecution AND defense sides of the story should be included in the Article. The essence of the dispute is NPOV, not "truth." The truth cannot yet be known because there has not been a final determination of innocence or guilt of the murder in any court. So, I certainly cannot claim to know the "truth." I only claim that both the guilty views and the innocence views be included in the article, and that the Article not be worded to show guilt when that has not yet been finally determined, and the accused are still presumed innocent. The main people on the article with me (who have the most at stake and are the main complainers) The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, Bluewave and Salvio have said right above they do NOT want an indefinite topic ban, but are instead seeking a more moderate remedy. They propose that I stop editing the Article for a month, but continue participating in the discussions on the Article Talk page. I agree with this approach. This way, there is a sanction, but there is not a tossing away of all of my research and knowledge on this case, which is extensive.

The Magnificent Clean-Keeper has correctly noted above that: "A complete MoMK topic ban would equal a general ban...." A total permanent ban from the Article would be way too unfair, and would essentially be a total ban from Wikipedia, because I could not continue volunteering here with such a grossly unfair sentence being inflicted on me. I am not a SPA. That is a totally false accusation. I have previously edited extensively on a colonial history article. I have well over 500 edits on this Kercher Murder Article, and previously over 450 edits on a totally unrelated colonial history article. All this means is that I tend to work on one article at a time and can get too obsessed because I am very dedicated about any projects that I work on in real life or on here. But it does not mean that I am a SPA with some sort of conflict of interest in this article or hidden agenda. So for editors who are too dedicated, a month long break from editing the topic is a good idea. I do feel that I should take a break from the Article to avoid getting so worked up. But if I get permanently banned from the murder Article for being a SPA, that would be so unfair and untrue that I would not feel comfortable volunteering here on my other main interest, which is US history topics, and my volunteer efforts here would just be all thrown away. If dedicated editors are just casually tossed away like that on untrue claims of being a SPA, eventually Wikipedia will run out of editors. Being dedicated is not the same thing as being a SPA.

The three main editors editing in opposition to me on the article: The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, Bluewave and Salvio have all said that they now do not support an indefinite topic ban, and have voted against it. That should resolve the matter. The other two editors who posted on this thread made only one edit each on the Article just prior to the start of this thread, and their efforts to now totally and permanently topic ban an editor who has been so dedicated as to make over 500 edits on the Article should be without standing. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed remedies

(Note: Comment made prior to the last postings above of The Magnificent Clean-Keeper and Salvio) This is just treating a person like trash who has donated hundreds of hours and spent funds researching and contributing to this article and Wikipedia. I have never encountered such a grossly unfair procedure in my life. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment: I note that topic bans on here are usually done in an organized and formal manner, with voting. There is a type of formality and fairness to the process, with it usually being expressly stated at the outset that there is a proposal for a topic ban. I was deprived of all of that procedural fairness entirely, since this thread did not start out as a topic ban proposal, but just a complaint. There were only two people who seemed to advocate for a topic ban later on. There was no voting or formality to it. It was just a haphazard discussion which seemed to suddenly end up as a topic ban after Salvio said he wanted that, but now I see he has posted above that he changed his mind, and also that another commenter has suggested a more moderate approach. That would seem fairer, given that lack of proper procedure in this thread compared to other threads involving topic bans. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't respond to your attacks and else but to one point.

There is an overwhelming number of editors that spent not hundreds but thousands of hours on this project and like you, they donated their time and effort and yet, most of them do not complain about their edits being edited or even reversed. Try to think about it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You can be as angry as you like. The facts of the matter are that you are a disruptive WP:SPA who will not edit colliegially with other editors, and has previously been blocked for edit-warring disruptively with a sockpuppet account on your pet article. You display a disregard for everyone who disagrees with your POV edits (which is practically everyone editing the article, unsurprisingly) and try to claim that every other editor is biased whereas in reality they are only trying to make the article conform to Wikipedia policy (for example, I had edited the article once, and was immediately accused by you). You are a time sink for every other editor here and are degrading Wikipedia with your edits, both under this username, your previous username, and your sockpuppets. All that remains is for an uninvolved admin to step up to the plate and solve this problem. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite: Your latest attack is just another example of the very mean spirited manner in which you have proceeded. The horrible way you have gone after me speaks volumes. You have misrepresented many things and provided false and misleading links. Then you say I'm uncollegial. Enough. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Which part is false? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All of it. But there is no point in going over it all again with a person so full of animosity towards me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And that's the point, really, isn't it? Every point I made is factual - you can't rebut any of it. I don't have any animosity towards you as a person, only against the way in which you are causing problems in this article. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

@Z.: What I see (and this is a fact) is that you promised to provide diffs here and in the previous ANI and Wikiquette thread, yet you didn't provide them then and keep making accusation here and still don't back them up (with diffs). Guess there aren't any in your favor and you keep pushing your unfounded accusations with hot air as a backup. Pretty lame arguments, I'd say.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have explained, I have had a hard time preparing diffs and have only figured out a couple. I suppose I could have practiced, but I never got the hang of it. Plus, it is hard to spend that kind of time when there is a hoard of people on this thread attacking you, all at the same time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Just what I expected: Another lame excuse. Several editors gave you links to help pages for diffs and Wikid, your favorite editor even posted a step by step guide on how to make diffs. That was weeks ago so you had plenty of time to learn this very simple task and keep your promises. Any better excuse on hand?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's like knitting. You need to practice or you don't get the knack for it.Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that's at least a funny excuse. Thanks for making me smile :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite: The explanation for my name change was on my user page for a long time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zlykinskyja Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

...and you were blocked for edit warring for the first time with this sock account (like you didn't care).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been a while, but as I recall the block was for the sock puppet issue, although it was not clarified. The finding in that against me was sock puppet, due to my improper name change without following the requirement of properly marking the original account as "Retired." Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? You might want to check your block log: [69]. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the finding I recall was that the editor who removed the well sourced text was in the wrong. But since I was perceived as being a sock when I tried to change my name without marking my original account as Retired, I was perceived to be in the greater wrong. But that debt to society was well paid for I would say. Check the detailed explanation on my User page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ZlykinskyjaZlykinskyja (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion to Zlykinskyja would be to consider the fact that Knox is not the only person who is wrongfully convicted by a corrupted justice system. Now, I think you feel that you have reached a stalemate when editing this article. This means that expeding more energy here is wasted energy. What you could do is start new articles on other cases where any reasonable person can see that the jailed person is very likely innocent. I can give you a list of hundreds of such cases. If you slowly start writing articles on these other cases, then that would be a far more productive use of your time.

Another important factor here is that the situation the jailed persons are in does not evolve fast; it can takes years for new appeals to be heard. If you only edit the case of a single person then this means that you end up arguing on the basis of the same old facts day after day and that causes persons to get irritated. If you instead edit, say, 30 such articles and if we assume that it takes two years on average before a new development in the legal case occurs per case, then that means a new development on average every 5 weeks.

So, you'll quite frequently have someting really new to write about. If your judgement about the person being innocent is correct, then usually the new development will prove you correct and your opponents wrong. Over time that will lead other editors to take your arguments more seriously. Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Count Iblis. You and The Magnificent Clean-Keeper and Wikid are the very few on here who have treated me with any sort of decency and respect, instead of all this hate being directed at me by editors who hold a different POV of the case. Your kindness is very much appreciated. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, the vast improvements that Zlykinskyja has already made, and can continue to make, to other crime articles on Wikipedia will be a welcome addition. Also, I think much has been learned to help expand articles such as: Stalking, Persecution and Genocide. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wikid. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh? That was the very first time you said a nice thing about me. How did I deserve that? I'll need some time to process it in my slowly fading brain :D The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your proposal for a more moderate remedy. It was your idea, and you got Salvio to go along. That deserves a thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated, even so I'm still surprised. Now I can enjoy my very very late night dinner, actually closer to a midnight snack.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Buon appetito (I believe this is Italian for bon appetite.)Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although a simple "enjoy your meal" would have done :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Erik Möller

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

---

On 27 April, a Fox News article appeared, claiming that Wikimedia Foundation deputy director Erik Möller had made statements supporting paedophilia. The day after, his BLP was locked for a month with the edit summary (Changed protection level of Erik Möller: Excessive vandalism: prevention, due to current coverage in media ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite)), presumably to prevent addition of this material.

Arguably, the Fox News article was quite unfair to Erik, taking his statements out of context. On the other hand, the press being what it is, we know there are many BLP subjects who have received unfair press coverage, and whose BLP articles are not locked for a month when such material appears -- on the contrary, editors generally ensure that such material is represented, following the NPOV rationale.

Now, thinking about this for a moment, double standards (one standard for WMF personnel, one for all other living persons) cannot be an honourable solution here. Either Erik's BLP is unlocked and allowed to feature the unfair -- but "reliably sourced" -- coverage, or we need to seriously rethink our NPOV and BLP policies, and the standing that journalistic sources should have in our BLP writing. I suggest this situation and its various ramifications are worth pondering over. --JN466 22:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It was just semi-protected. Perhaps a bit early, but not a bad move under the circumstances.--Chaser (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. That mitigates the situation somewhat; I misread the edit summary. Even so, there is still something to think about here. --JN466 22:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There's been more and more so-called pre-emptive semiprotection of BLP's, and there was a big discussion of it at WP:PP last month or thereabouts. I'm not crazy about this trend but I think this treatment of Erik's page doesn't seem exceptional in the general context. Some people even want to semi-protect all BLP's. In reality we're probably heading towards flagged revisions. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• It is supremely important here that WP:BLP should be seen to be applied without distinction or preference. My opinion is that unsupported allegations against any living individual should not be added to any article here. Given the public interest, however limited that might be, or become, I agree with at least semi-protection pending further cogent information. Meanwhile, this thread seems to have served its purpose, and does not require Admin intervention. Rodhullandemu 01:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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

All-time Long Island Rough Riders roster

Unsourced list of names with no reliable source. The creator of the article is not only reverting my prod blp tag in violation of the rules for unsourced blps, he's also repeatedly restoring a fair use image for which there is no rationale for us in that page. Woogee (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What part of "I am working on the article right now, and if you'll just hold your horses all your concerns will be addressed" don't you understand? --JonBroxton (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What part of "Don't remove the prod tag until you provide a reliable source" do you not understand? Woogee (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The link provided is a reliable source as it links to the league's official archive of historical statistical data. More sources will be added shortly, if you leave me alone and let me get on with working on the article, instead of dragging me into pointless arguments like this. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It links to a main page of the league's website, but not to any page which proves that any of those names were ever on that team. And you still haven't addressed the illegal use of the fair use image. Woogee (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Woogee, let the man complete the page. Jumping the gun and nom'ing it for deletion as soon as it is made is kinda biting. Relax. If it doesn't meet WP:N it will be deleted, if it does, then it will remain. Deleting conversations, bringing things to ANI, and just starting conversations everywhere is, as JonBroxton said, preventing him from getting his work done. Relax. It gets done, it gets done. Give the dude an hour. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't nom it for deletion, I listed it for prod, which gives several days to provide reliable sources. What's the point of the PROD BLP tag if not to use it to make sure that BLPs are sourced properly? Woogee (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A PROD tag can be removed by anyone, anytime. I made it very clear to JonBroxton on his talk page that he doesn't get a ton of time. He needs to get his work done tonight. I also told him that if he feels the page isn't mainspace worthy yet, it can always be moved back. Relax, Rome wasn't built in a day. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As you can see, I have now added five additional source references, and altered the licensing of the image. I would have done this earlier but, well, you know... --JonBroxton (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The BLP PROD never should have been applied to this article. It is for unsourced biographies. It is not for articles or lists that mention living people. It is not for pages with inadequate referencing. Maurreen (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about clarifying the scope of BLP Prods here. Maurreen (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

@Neutral Homer, what you say is true regarding generic PROD tags. The BLP PROD tag can be removed only upon the insertion of a WP:RS to support at least one statement made about the person in the article, per Wikipedia:STICKY#Objecting. Not that I'm saying that the BLP PROD tag belonged on the article, I'm just being overly fastidious... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Surely there could have been some good faith shown to an editor with 35,000 edits and a large number of well sourced articles created. Articles don't have to be perfect the moment they are published, and if they aren't, part of being a collaborative project means you could just as easily pitch in and help get something up to scratch rather than wasting time bringing things here. Camw (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• I have removed Woogee's rollback rights, which have been misused [70], [71], and this happened two weeks after being blocked for edit-warring (with rollback). The BLP PROD can only be used on articles which are biographies of living people, so not for list of people. As Camw mentions, WP:AGF. Cenarium (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy applies to anything "...anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, images, and categories." then the PROD tag must as well. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 19:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The BLP PROD process was created to deal with unsourced biographies of living people, the consensus which led to its adoption was that it would be used on unsourced biographies of living people and the policy reflects it. There is no question on this; and any extension of its scope would require community consensus. Cenarium (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) Question: Woogee's user page says:

I am not a new user. In fact, I am a former admin who felt it would be best if I left Wikipedia for a while. I am back to try to start over again. I don't feel the need to reveal my past Username, though I might be willing to provide it if people email me, but don't consider this an obligation on my part. I'm going to start over as a basic user, and let's see how things go.

NOTE: I was not blocked or banned, I left voluntarily, several years ago.

I noticed this statement a while ago, when Woogee first began to participate on the noticeboards, but did not consider it pertinent at the time to dig further into it. Considering, however, the sum total of the editor's behavior since re-appearing, is it now legitimate to ask what Woogee's previous identity was and why they gave up the admin bit - i.e. was it voluntary or "under a cloud"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently BLP does not matter any more. Thanks for letting me know. Woogee (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that Woogee has left the room. I'm just wondering, in general, a couple of things: (1) How would erroneously listing someone on a soccer team roster count as a "BLP violation"? It's not like the article says "List of known perverts" or something. (2) How can an article be built without the sources already being known? I've often seen this argument: "I'll add sources later." How can you be posting unsourced information? Would it kill the author to include the sources while adding the information? I'm not arguing for overzealous deletion. I'm just curious how it's possible to build an article with sources apparently to be looked up later? "Putting the cart before the horse"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Woogee left with a FU to one editor [72] and a whining FU to everybody [73][74][75] and that prompts me to ask again: who is this person who claims to be an ex-admin and under what circumstance did he lose or drop the bit and leave Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pizzashoe

Pizzashoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is already blocked, but they are exhibiting sock-like behavior. I realize SPI is over here, but as I have no one to link this too, I was hoping someone here might recognize any patterns.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't ring any bells for me, sorry. You could check the page history of the articles which they edited and see if any blocked users jump out as related. TNXMan 14:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Trueman31

I posted this matter on the 27 April 2010, but unfortunately it was overlooked (I'm not surprised, there was a lot going on that day).

On the 27, 6 accounts were blocked for being sockpuppets of Trueman31. Trueman31 first appeared on 7 July 2007 [76] and was blocked indefinitely on 3 September 2007 [77]. Since then, they have created many sock accounts ([78]) to vandalise various articles on Wikipedia (I believe most of the articles vandalised are usually EastEnders characters). One of Trueman31's traits while using the new accounts is to copy and paste the talk page of User:AnemoneProjectors to their talk page. He has also copied another user's talk page who reverted some of Trueman31's edits and on that day he decided to copy mine, which I found to be quite disturbing [79].

I come here to ask if anything can be done to stop Trueman31 from creating anymore accounts and to try and put an end to this. Thank you. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless he has a fixed IP address, there's little that can be done. I've had a look at the SPI pages, and it isn't clear whether he has. You might want to contact a Checkuser privately to see whether the IP appears to be relatively stable; if it is, a suitable block could be imposed. Rodhullandemu 00:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. He's not on a fixed IP. However, I am 99% sure that User:Trueman31 and User:Ln of x are the same person, and I am sure a few years ago, someone mananged to contact Ln of x's ISP and after that, the vandalism stopped for quite some time. AnemoneProjectors 13:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring, canvassing, vote-stacking, and BLP/Defamation by Annoynmous

Annoynmous (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) has been editing up to the 3RR limit at the Steven Emerson article. He solicits others to revert edits at that page, especially when he is away from his computer or at his 3RR limit. He insists on putting into the article non-RS contentious "facts" regarding Emerson, a living person. As background, Emerson brought a multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the author of those "facts" (though years later Emerson dropped it).

Efforts to dissuade Annoy from this conduct, through talk page discussion, at a 3RR report, at a wikiquette complaint, and at the RS/N have not been successful.

As this involves a combination of edit warring, vote-stacking, canvassing, and BLP/Defamation issues, and prior complaints at the respective noticeboards have not altered Annoy's conduct, I am bringing the matter here. Annoy has been blocked eight times in the past, primarily for edit warring.

Initial edit warring complaint

His edit-warring was first raised at WP:AN/EW four days ago: [80]

• 1st revert: [81]
• 2nd revert: [82]
• 3rd revert: [83]
• 4th revert: [84]

[but see admin's view below as to one of these not counting as a revert]

Diff of edit warring warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Initial vote-stacking/campaigning complaint

Annoy engaged in contemporaneous canvassing. His messages were clearly not neutral, and were obvious attempts to influence a discussion. Poster-children of what is described at wp:canvass as improper Votestacking and Campaigning:

• To I/P Collaboration WProject: "I'm engaged with [Epeefleche] on the two articles mentioned above, but this is a crisis that can't be solved by one editor. I need help from like minded souls ... I don't feel like engaging in another nasty edit war. ... I'm sounding the alarm that people need to aware of Epeefleche's edits."
• "would appeciate if while I get some shut eye you could keep an eye on this article and make sure no one reverts my edits while I'm away from my computer."
• "If you know any like minded editors who feel like I do I would ask that you please notify them."
• "If he reverts my edits again will you please try and restore them."
• "Epeefleche ... has reported me on the edit war noticeboard .... if you could please speak on my behalf"
• "I would appreciate it if you could alert anybody you feel may share the same concerns as you and I"

Results of edit warring and wikiquette complaints

Tarizabjotu declined the 3RR complaint three days ago, writing: "I don't see how a block will help matters here. There was no "canvassing". Annoynmous complained to someone, perhaps someone they trust (people do that all the time in content disputes), and it is up to him to ignore the complaint. Not going to block over that. The fourth revert is not a valid revert because it was consecutive with the third. They're both considered one revert. No block here."

Nsaum also raised a wikiquette complaint, which has not led to conclusive action: [87]

More recent edit warring

Annoynmous continued edit warring up to the 3RR limit again today:

1. First revert: [88]
2. Second revert: [89]
3. Third revert: [90]

Diff of additional edit warring warning: [91]

Diffs of additional attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92], [93], [94]

More recent canvassing

• "Epeefleche has once again reverted the version you and I agreed to. I'm at 3rr and can no longer edit. Just wanted to let you know."

John Z followed his receipt of that note in short order by reverting, but only in slight part: [95]

BLP/Defamation

Part of what is being edit-warred over is a BLP/defamation issue. Annoy insists on inputting highly critical contentious "facts" sourced to a non-RS article. The "facts" relate to both what a living person has supposedly done and said, and what others supposedly said about Emerson. WP:GRAPEVINE instructs us to: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is ... poorly sourced." But when I have tried to follow the guideline, Annoy has been insistent on putting the contentious material back in the BLP. Discussion is taking place here, but Annoy still refuses to agree that the material should be deleted from the BLP.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How many battlegrounds do you need? It seems you should let the RS noticeboard, which had an post only 40 minutes ago, do its work. I do not think that this dispute should be ranging over multiple fora (forums?). At this point, anyone who wants to be is thoroughly aware of the dispute.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy for that NB to be pointed here. As this involves various issues, it makes sense for it to be addressed in one place.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Are there more issues involved than when the RS discussion (which just had another interesting and thoughtful post) started? Personally, and subject to anything that Annoy might have to say, I am inclined to suggest a strong warning to Annoy not to post things that can be interpreted as encouraging others help out when you are at 3RR (which is not an entitlement) and let the RS discussion run its course, as it seems to be productive. But gee whiz, this has been at 3RR, WQ, RS, and now here, hope I didn't miss any. Shopping isn't nice either.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clear. The most recent edit warring and canvassing/vote-stacking are new events, not previously reported. The prior edit warring and canvassing is mentioned as related background, as they bear on the pattern here. The BLP/defamation issues at the same article are of course related, but at this point it seemed unproductive to spread the new complaints out over two other fora as independent complaints, and most efficient to have a central place for resolution.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again epeefleche is being misleading. First off he omits the fact that the first example he gives above was declined by the noticeboard. He once again falsely claims that one of the edits was a revert when it wasn't. It was an attempt to properly format a picture.

Contrary to his assertion I have repeatedly given my reasons for my edits on the talk page. John Z agreed with my version of the article and I simply informed him that epeefleche had once again violated the consensus. He has repeatedly refused to engage in constructive discussion and instead just engages in mad reverts in order to get the version of the article he wants. I have never defamed epeefleche and he knows it. The strongest I've gotten is to compare him to jayjg, which I apologized for, and I once referred to his editing habits as a "crusade".

I wish that instead of complaining to every noticeboard, ARB committe board he can that epeefleche would actually engage on the talk page and make the case for his edits, but he refuses to do so. Instead he looks for every way he can to get me banned so I will go away and he can get the version of the article he wants. annoynmous 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, but you shouldn't even look like you are trying to solicit 3RR backup. An admin can conclude "edit warring" from that, even where there's not actual 3RR breaches. Personally, I think the noticeboards are dealing appropriate with this matter and that there is nothing to be done here. Go work it out at RS and on talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

@Annoy: 1) I omitted no such fact. I in fact quoted what Tarizabjotu wrote. 2) The talk pages, which I provide diffs for above, speak for themselves, and reflect tireless efforts on my part to engage in constructive discussion, without success.

@Wehwalt: With all due respect (and apologies; I should have said "hello again" at the outset), the most recent edit warring/vote-stacking/campaigning has not been raised elsewhere. As this ball of wax is all connected, and the RS/N doesn't connect the dots, this would appear to be the best central place.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello again to you. I was actually hoping other admins would also weigh in, also remembering our recent run-in, but we seem to be short on personnel tonight. Maybe everyone's down in the bar?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're right here with me, and sadly I can't get any of the bleary-eyed lot to turn to their blackberries. (just joking). No worries -- this can wait for them to sober up.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course you didn't omit anything, that's why you listed 4 reverts above without claifying that one wasn't a revert.

Once again I haven't votestacked or canvassed. John Z has contributed to the article and talk page and agreed with my edits and all I did was inform him of that. Why is epeefleche not called out for vitestacking for alerting several different editors to his discussion on the RS noticebaord? annoynmous 01:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

1) To provide greater clarity, in addition to the above admin's statement, I've just now added an italicized parenthetical at mention of the revertreverts above, to bring the reader's attention to the admin's view there as well. 2) As to your vote-stacking and canvassing, the diffs speak for themselves. 3) As to my alerting you and other editors to our RS/N discussion, the "alerts" were certainly neutral. Furthermore, I not only alerted you as an involved editor, but also those who had commented at the previous RS/N discussions on whether FAIR is an RS, as was quite clear in those alerts, as to John Z here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again epeefleche is being delibertely deceptive. It's the 1st revert that is falsely indentified, not the 4th. I don't know whether he changed the order from the original page or not, but the fact matter is that the admin declined the block because they agreed the edit was not a revert.

Fine, if you can alert people so can I. John Z has contributed to the article and talk page and I left a neutral message on his talk page on how you went against the consensus. annoynmous 02:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that when epeefleche originally posted this on the noticeboard he listed 5 reverts. The problem was that 4 of the edits he listed weren't made by me. It wasn't until stellarkid pointed this out to him that he admitted he made a mistake and changed it. annoynmous 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You know Epeefleche is quite rich in complaining about canvassing and votestacking. Here is a message he left on Jimbo wales page:

Defamation?
Hi Jimbo. I know this is a hot button for you. An editor is inserting highly critical and contentious material into a BLP, from a non-RS (I believe) article.

The subject of the BLP has already brought a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the article author over his alleged defamation of the subject in his writing. He dropped the suit after a number of years. But now an editor is insisting on putting contentious language from an article by the author into the BLP. I think per various guidelines it should be deleted immediately. The editor edit-wars with me whenever I seek to delete it (or another, well-intentioned editor puts it back in with a "citation needed" notation).

I raised the issue at BLPN, but so far without effect. The matter is discussed here. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything you wrote on this that I disagree with at all. The source is not good enough.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC) "

To my knowledge Jimbo was never involved in this dispute until now. This seems to me like the definition of canvassing, sending a message to a random editor not connected to the dispute who just happens to be the owner of wikipedia. How is that fair? annoynmous 03:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, there's no way in hell that Jimbo can be considered to be a "random editor". Whether one believes that he should be or not, it is clear that Jimbo is the holder of significant power and authority on Wikipedia, and bringing disputes to him in the hope that he will intervene is not in any way unusual. It probably shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is, and to pretend that going to Wales is "canvassing" is ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So people aren't allowed to canvass with the exception of Jimbo? Is that in the guidelines somewhere? I gotta say this whole dispute, like most disputes on wikipedia, has left me in a depressed state. I'm regretting getting involved at all. annoynmous 04:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, going to Jimbo is not "canvassing", because the intent is not to get an editor involved in the dispute as it stands, but to short-circuit the dispute entirely by going to the top. I have no idea if that's in any rule, but it's an accurate description of the system as it functions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo would be the correct essay to refer to. You are correct, contacting Jimbo is trying to short-circuit the discussion and is largely frowned upon. There are only specific instances where it is appropriate to contact Jimbo, usually in terms of something that he would actually be involved in. Silverseren^C 05:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• As the essay that Silverseren directs us to says: "Furthermore, when Jimbo does respond he rarely takes sides, unless it is a completely egregious and unescapably important issue that must be responded to."

Which I gather it is. Given Jimbo's comments on his talk page and at the RS/N discussion, and his deletion of offending material at the article itself.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes and you then interpreted those comments to give you permission to delete FAIR from wikipedia altogether which he never gave you permission to do. Also I must say it's extremely hypocritical to complain about my supposed canvassing when you left a message on the talk page of an editor who had nothing to do with the dispute. Was the case really so dire that only Jimbo could solve it? annoynmous 08:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just to note that Jimbo actually did a revert on the article with an edit summary: [96] Stellarkid (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• @Annoy: Your statement as to me deleting FAIR from Wikipedia altogether is incorrect. As I've discussed at the RS/N.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, after epeefleche contacted him. annoynmous 05:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What isn't really clear to me is why this issue is having an effect on article content. BLP works on a 'do no harm' basis and the policy compliance of the material from Sugg's article hasn't been established. Perhaps it will be shown to be policy compliant at some point or there will be alternative sources but in the meantime surely BLP requires that the material be excluded from the article. This seems like a no brainer to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with Sean.hoyland, BLP's mantra of "do no harm" and "when in doubt" apply here, and it should be excluded from the article until (and if) sources surface that are policy compliant. Furthermore as the editor who filed the Wikietiquette report[97], I think a lot of hard feelings and "drama" could have been avoided had something been done there. It is NEVER proper to use a Wikiproject talk page to "warn" other editors about someone, or air their "dirty laundry"; and the fact that the discussion there continued despite a number of other editors joining in saying it was an improper forum, only helped to fan the flames and cause this dispute to spread to multiple locations. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 07:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How was the inclusion of Suggs article causing harm. It was stated as his opinion, nothing more. Recently epeefleceh interpreted the RS noticeboard talkpage as a liscense to remove FAIR from every article on wikipedia. annoynmous 07:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Help needed; Annoy reverting deletion at the Emerson article. I'm at a complete loss. Now, despite Jimbo's very clear statement at the RS/N, Annoy has reverted deletions of mention of Sugg in the Emerson article. We really need an admin to step up to the plate here and address this; I can't seem to get through to Annoy, and apparently now neither can Jimbo.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is complete bunk. Jimbo never gave epeefleche permission to remove Sugg altogether. All he said is that the parts that don't have any cititation should be removed. Epeefleche inferred a lot more from Jimbo's statement than he should have. He thought it gave him permission to remove FAIR from over 30 articles. Several editors on RS board have said that epeefleche was wrong in this conclusion. annoynmous 11:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• My above comment relates to Annoy's revert at the Emerson article. That was in direct contravention to Jimbo's comment. Commenting on whether we should use FAIR/Sugg at the Emerson article, Jimbo said: "Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. As was noted up above, he isn't Thomas Friedman or anything - so his scathing criticism isn't even arguably noteworthy in and of itself...Jimbo Wales"--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Have to second Epeefleche here. This gets frustrating. I don't want to appear overly critical but it seems like a hardened case of "I can't hear you". Can we get an admin here to help? Stellarkid (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm amused that Stellarkid is trying to represent himself as a disinterested party when he's been epeefleches partner in a lot of the antics on this page. An I must say it's also rich to talk about frustration, because I'm a mountain of it at this point. All I did was lightly tweak an article I thought was biased and epeefleche and stellarkid acted like I'd committed some crime against nature. annoynmous 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I do not take it as the conclusion of the RSN discussion that the FAIR source cannot be used. Although it was initially used inappropriately to source a great number of controversial factual statements, for every one of which better sources have now been substituted , it can still be used to give the opinion of the author. Removing it from this article is unnecessary, and legal proceedings being taken elsewhere are irrelevant--even if it is eventually held that Sugg libeled the subject, that very fact will be relevant. Removing it from other articles is POINTYy. It has been challenged at RSN several times in different contexts, and always upheld as a usable source for opinion, ebven in BLPs. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've now reflected Jimbo's comment 4 paragraphs above, w/regard to whether we should use the FAIR/Sugg article. His opinion that we should not, under the circumstances, is clear.

As far as deletions of FAIR at other Wikipedia articles is concerned, as I said at the RS/N, the only two situations where it can't be used as a general matter are: 1) as an RS for fact; and 2) where it introduces contentious material to a BLP. If it is pure opinion, generally that is fine. For example, where FAIR says "We didn't like his book." But where it is both opinion and one of the above, it is not, for reasons I imagine are obvious. So, it's not OK to reflect FAIR saying "Our opinion is that Person X's racism is bad," or "Our opinion is that the fact that Y did such-and-such is bad" -- in the absence of RS support for the fact that Person X is racist, or that Y did such-and-such.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well who gave you personal permission to determine that in each of those instances that those articles were doing such things. That's a matter to take up on the talk pages of each individual article.

Also Jimbo's words were in the context of Emersons lawsuit. I pointed out that his reasoning was wrong in this sense because the lawsuit was dropped. It should also be said that when Jimbo personally edited the article he didn't remove Sugg. You would think that if he was so sure Sugg wasn't a RS that he would have done that. annoynmous 09:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats from User:Draganparis

User Draganparis is obviously not content with just one case running against him, he pushes even more... First he threatened with legal action in the talk pages of two admins here [98] and here [99] and then he even dared post even more threats in the thread of the ANI case against him above[100]!!

His full text reads :

Dear Sir, I saw that you had problems with Simanos. I think that we all have. It seams that Mr “GK 1973” and “Simanos” pretend not to be aware that I disclosed my personality almost 2 months ago and that this has been verified by Wikipedia administrator. This protects me against defamation. Both users have been explicitly defaming me permanently since. Of course I had some harsh words for them, although not containing direct insults. I do not say that I will make a legal case immediately but I think that they should be aware of the matters of facts. The European jurisdiction is quite explicit, I am afraid; even the US jurisdiction has recently been quite clearly pronounced. I expect Wikipedia to respect its own rules regarding defamation and ban the two editors indefinitely. I want that the case finishes calmly without a scandal that may be really very serious indeed. (For further information please see my Talk page, present investigation page, Syril and Methodius, Alexander the Great, and Macedonia (Ancient kingdom) as well as their Talk pages.)Draganparis (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

and...

Sorry, a constructive SOLUTION This dispute takes quite ominous form and I think that the administrators should not hasten to make a decision. There are couple of important points to consider. 1. Illusion of the closed world of Wikipeadia makes editors to behave in quite particular way. Sometimes to go over the limits imposed by the real, external world (insult each other too strongly). And 2. The solution may be a more strict application of the internal rules and establishment of strict anonymity of all editors. Here is why. The illusion that the internal rules are general life rules applicable to the entire world is an exaggeration but very active editors tend to use vocabulary of the external world when being in Wikipedia. For example they will say that sockpuppetry is a crime, what may be an internal “crime”, but in the real world this is a part of normal behaviour, often highly praised behaviour. It is similar with other internal rules. Their meaning is the internal meaning which does not have much to do with the real external world. The other important aspect is anonymity The intensity of editing and the freedom of confronting concurrent opinions, as I suspect, is very much increased thanks to the anonymity. People are just unrestrained to propose more solutions if they do not care to expose their incoherency as persons, or to risk to make mistakes publically, or to show their ignorance. Anonymity also protects to certain extent against accusations for behaviour which is not in accordance with the customs of the outside world. The disputes that take place on Wikipedia are often very cruel and sometimes, if the protection of the anonymity would not be there, some discussions would not be held at all, or we would have frequent appeals to tribunals for defamation. If everybody would be acting publically, the intensity of editing, the confrontation of the opinion and the production would be limited. Indeed, may be that the quality of the edits would be better, but the productivity would be, I may only guess, much, much lower. Now the actual situation of a confrontation of me, as not anonymous, and the other two editors, who retained their anonymity, has created very asymmetrical situation. I am completely protected from strong attacks and defamation, but they, since anonymous, are not,. The fact that it is known who I am, every defamation may be seen as damaging to me and may qualify for juridical procedure in the “outside world” and almost automatic condamination of the other party. As I mentioned, the recent legislations and the US jurisprudence show that this might be very fast procedure. This kind of asymmetry is not beneficial for Wikipedia. Certainly intense defamatory discussions are also damaging but these could be better managed (what was not the case this time). Therefore my conclusion is that anonymity must be a condition for an editor on Wikipedia, under the condition that the administrators apply the rules of Wikipedia particularly these related to incivility much more strictly then they have been doing.. My conclusion concerning this particular case is that the great responsibility for the dead run must be taken by the administrators who permitted that defamation goes on for too long time (until this very moment) with almost no warning, or with occasional ineffective warning (to Simanos). Certainly the important responsibility is on the party which insulted (GK1973 and Simanos). Certainly, I should not have been permitted to disclose my personality since this immediately created inequality in protection against defamation. I could defame, but the anonymous opponents could not, or if they did, they had to count with application of the laws “external” to Wikipedia. My bottom line is in fact that the administrators must apply rules more strictly and that the ALL editors must remain anonymous on Wikipedia. My suggestion for the solution of this particular conflict would therefore be to certainly punish the party which insulted me. The punishment should be some reasonably long block. However, I should be asked, as soon as possible, to open a new anonymous account and thereby become equal to other editors in respect to responsibilities and vulnerability to the insults and defamation. The administrators must be asked to apply the rules more strictly, and in the future the non-anonymity should be forbidden on Wikipedia.Draganparis (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope that after these manifests, the community will see through this self-made mask DP has been trying to build to present himself as some kind of victim and understand what we had to deal with for months now from an editor already twice banned from the beginning of the year. GK (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well, the fact that he thinks there's such a thing as European defamation law (and his use of "legislations") makes this threat laughable, but still; WP:NLT. Suggest blocks. Ironholds (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeffed for legal threats, as per usual practice. Tim Song (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I sometimes think we should have a special barnstar for dumbest legal threat of the day. This one might have won were it not for the item a couple of sections below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Move fixing

Can an admin please fix List of film production companies. A editor moved it some three to four times and it is all borked up. It was moved from its original name to List of Film Distribution Companies, then to List of Hollywood and Independent Film Distribution Companies then to List of Theatrical Film Distributors then to List of Theatrical Film Companies. Then they

None of the new names are correct and it really needs to be moved back, but because of all the moving and a bot corrected the first double redirect already, it can't be done by a regular editor. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Would an admin also add indefinite move protection to List of film production companies (currently located at List of Theatrical Film Distributors) to prevent further disruption? Cunard (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved back, redirects deleted, and move protected for one week. Tim Song (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone might want to inform the editor that his numerous messages asking for help now link to two red links. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The same editor, Misterix (talk · contribs), is apparently very confused. He keeps recreating the talk pages of the various deleted renames asking that they be undeleted. Myself and another editor have attempted to explain to him what he did wrong and why those efforts are not the correct method of dealing with his idea, but instead he did a copy paste move of List of film production companies to List of theatrical film distributors, then blanked the former leaving a note to Tim Song asking that it be deleted[101]. I've left him another note asking him to stop and trying to explain what he is doing wrong, but thus far he is leaving people messages but not really being responsive to others. Need some admin help in cleaning up the various talk pages for non-existent article's he's made, and the copy/paste move. He is aware of this thread as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible legal threat?

I just noticed an edit summary by 69.154.210.160 that implies that someone will be arrested if they keep posting something. [102] The Thing // Talk // Contribs 06:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, the IP has been blocked... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 06:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Obviously the anon is question thinks people will be arrested for "corruption and misconduct" like "Governor Blagojevich" for posting sock template. Not a legal threat, but definitely disruptive. Recommend the anon be blocked for 24 (longer if their block log requires it) and laughed at for the silliest threat possibly in awhile. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

...like Blagojevich, "and for the same reason". Yes, we've had several wikipedians who tried to sell Senate appointments. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That comment seems to be more out of rage than anything, but is clearly against NPA at the least. Might be a legal threat, but seems more like inflammatory personal attacking, in my opinion. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoax article

Resolved

Katrine Tendido has had a speedy tag on it for several hours. The talk page is copy and pasted by the creator from a different article. This article has been deleted two times previously as a hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you not wait patiently like 170 other people? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 13:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the talk page because it's a blatant misrepresentation of those comments, which were posted t Talk:Miley Cyrus. I'd rather leave the article itself to another admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Additionally, the creator has been blocked, and the userpage which formed the original source of this article has been deleted. —Soap— 13:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Page deleted as an obvious hoax, each "cast billing" was proved by the article on the program to be bogus, the photograph was of Miley Cyrus. User who created the article had the same content on their userpage, which I have deleted as promotional material, and account indef blocked as a clear violation of WP:U (spam/promotional + disruptive). SGGH ^ping! 13:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Salting might be in order. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ahmed shahi

Moved from WP:AN

Ahmed shahi (talk · contribs) is accusing me of "spreading racism" ([103]), only because I have removed a very doublful source he is using: "Afghanpedia", a project of the website Sabawoon.com, a Pashto language newspaper with well-known affinities toward Pashtun nationalism and even the Taliban-movement. It does not mention its authors, contradicts leading scholarly encyclopedias, and promotes without any doubt Pashtun nationalist propaganda, for example the claim that "Pashtuns are 65% of Afghanistan", or that the Western forces that are fighting the Taliban and al-Kaida are "enemies of Afghans" and "insult Pashtuns" (see for example here or here). By no means is that website a reliable source. And because I have removed that source and instead used word-to-word quotes from the reliable Encyclopaedia of Islam, he is calling me a "racist". At the same time, User:Ahmad shahi is deleting well-referenced information and scholarly sources (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, etc. - see here). I had already reported him to an admin (User:Dbachmann; see respective discussion), but nothing happened. He is rejecting scholarly references, he does not know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources, he is extremely offensive and insults others (see above), and he has a clear ethnocentric agenda. As one can see in this comment ("... I don't understand what kind of an Afghan are you to be hating your own nation so much, removing Afghan history templates from articles that are part of Afghanistan's history. You hate anything and everything that is from Afghanistan, prepared by Afghans, or has the name Afghan in it ..."), he thinks that Wikipedia is some kind of a platform where everybody has to defend national interests. Tajik (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• The only comment I will make here is that I have fully protected Afghanistan while the edit warring is taking place (I've protected it for 1 month). I do not know the subject, so I have protected the article as it stood when I saw the RFPP request. I also suggested that Ahmed shahi (who created the RFPP request) report his problems with Tajik at AN - I have no thoughts on which editor is in the wrong here (if Tajik had made the report at RFPP, I would have referred him here) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  Correction: Tajik placed the request at RFPP, but Ahmed shahi placed a comment there, which I responded to. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am using well-known scholarly references, most of all Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI) and Encyclopaedia Iranica (EIr). EIr has free access, EI is available at universities and can be checked by others who are also studying oriental studies or Iranistics ate a university. User:Ahmed shahi, on the other hand, neither has access to the encyclopedia (hence I assume he is not at a university and has limited to no qualification in this field), is actively removing scholarly sources, googles irrelevant books from the 19th century to "source" his claims, and uses very doubtful websites (www.sabawoon.com) which - by no means - can be considered reliable sources. He is aggressive, insults others, and has a very specific ethnocentric agenda. Even when confronted with quotes from notable scholars, such as Clifford Edmund Bosworth, Louis Dupree, Georg Morgenstierne, etc, he either refuses to accept the facts or he falsifies the quotes in the article. That is very disturbing. Besides that, he invents expressions that are unknown to scholars, such as "last Afghan Empire", which is his own WP:OR and only supported by his unrealiable "Afghanpedia". It does not appear in any reliable encyclopedia or scholarly publication. Leaving that aside, the main reason why I reported him was his insult against me. Calling me "racist" only because I have removed his unrealiable and doubtful sources is clearly against Wikipedia rules. Tajik (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Would this be better at the Reliable sources noticeboard? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik appears to have a long history of getting in trouble.[104] He just talks about race and ethnicity which is what most prejudice people do, and often he criticizes people of other ethnic groups. He proudly claims being from Afghanistan on his user page but goes around defaming Afghanistan, its people and its history. His edits which appear to be all about race indicate that he is an extreme Persian-ethnocentric POV pusher. Over and over he claims that Iranian and Islamic sources are champions while any other sources are garbage and should be removed or tossed out of the articles. I believe he is very disruptive and should be blocked because he is not doing any good to Wikipedia. He secretly invites other Persian-ethnocentric editors (User:Inuit18, User:Ariana310, and User:Alefbe) to help him with edit-war so that he doesn't violate his one revert per page per week.[105].Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And, nothing from the Encyclopaedia of Islam that he cites in articles can be verified.Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

a) I reported User:Ahmed shahi, because he called me "racist". That is clearly against the rules of Wikipedia.

b) Everything in the Encyclopaedia of Islam can be checked. Anyone who is registered at a university or is working at a university has access to it. Ahmed shahi can't do it, because he is not working at a university, because he is not registered at a university, because he has no clue of history. To keep it short: he does not even have the slightest qualification or the most basic requirement to write an encyclopedic article about Afghanistan. Wikipedia is not supposed to favor the POV of unqualified people over those of real experts. I am quoting real experts, while Ahmed shahi is deleting academic quotes and instead promoted nonsense based on unrealible websites.

c) The Encyclopaedia of Islam is not an "Islamic source", as this user claims, but is an English language encyclopedia especially designed for academic studies in the West. The Encyclopaedia Iranica is a major project of the Columbia University. Again, his comments only prove that he neither has any knowledge of scientific historical research, nor does he have any knowledge of what sources to be used.

d) Except for doubtful and unreliable websites, Ahmed shahi is not able to present one single scholarly and academic source to support his views. That's because he is a POV pusher who is acting against the consensus among REAL experts.

Tajik (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone a "racist", Tajik (the big trouble maker [106]) keeps removing the sourced phrase "Afghanistan, meaning land of the Afghans" from the intro of Afghanistan without explaining why. Maybe he thinks Afghanistan should be land of the Tajiks and not the Afghans. Tajik proudly claims on his user page that he is from Afghanistan but goes around defaming Afghanistan, its history and its people. So I just reverted his vandalism.

Afghanistan is only one territory, and he writes "The territories now comprising Afghanistan". That proves that Tajik doesn't know what he's talking about. The information I used as a reference for the "last Afghan Empire" from Afghanpedia is backed by 100s of other sources, including Encyclopedia Iranica and all other sources that he praises. He falsely changes "last Afghan Empire" to "first Afghan Empire". I ask him right now to show us any (even one single source) that says the Durrani Empire was the "first Afghan Empire" as being asserted by Tajik in the article. I know for a fact he cannot come up with any because there is no source that would say such a lie. There were Afghan kingdoms in the past, known as Lodi dynasty, Suri dynasty, and even the Khilji dynasty were treated as an Afghan kingdom. Another was the Afghan Hotaki dynasty just before the Durrani Afghan kingdom.

The information from Encyclopaedia of Islam cannot be verified so he uses this as a source to back up his POVs in articles. If anyone tries to question it then too bad there is no way to verify it. -Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I'd have to agree with Tajik on this. Judging from the language, ignorance of the emphasis of verifiability, lack of civility, and deliberate avoidance of Wikipedia's RS policy, it only goes to show that Ahmed Shahi's reliability as an editor is seriously in doubt. And to call certain editors names and spreading baseless accusations against them because they are against his unilateral edits also run afoul on NPA. Encyclopaedia of Islam's data 'cannot be verified'? Look who's talking. Seriously, you'll need much better arguments to prove your case, and the way it's looking, you refuse to admit you were wrong. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how my name came up in this issue and why User:Ahmed shahi is accusing me of assisting User:Tajik in pushing - what he calls as - the ethnocentric POVs. I have tried to be neutral in the dispute between User:Tajik and User:Ahmed shahi. If I have reverted User:Ahmed shahi's edits which were un-sourced, or used unreliable sources, or conflicted scholarly sources such as Encylcopaedia Britannica and Encylcopaedia of Islam, I have also reverted some of User:Tajik's edits which seemed not totally accurate. So User:Ahmed shahi's accusation of me "assisting" User:Tajik is baseless. The fact that we (me and User:Tajik) refer to scholarly and reliable sources, and we end up reaching to an agreement without any long disputes, does not prove User:Ahmed shahi's contrary accusation.

In this current dispute, I would have to agree that User:Ahmed shahi uses unreliable and unscholarly sources to put forward his points such as "www.sabawoon.com" or other nonacademic websites. When he is provided with a reliable source, he calls it Original Research and ignores its validity. He seems not to have fully read the Wikipedia:No original research and has a false definition of what an Original Research is. Ariana (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that Ahmed shahi is using sources that don't meet our criteria, eg sabawoon.com and even worse its afghanpedia. What's odd is that he claims that there are many other sources - so why not use a reliable one? Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

@Eaglestorm. You support Tajik for saying things like this in the edit summaries that do nothing but provoke ethnic Pashtuns? Not only that, Tajik has called me Pashtun-ethnocentric or Pashtun ultra-nationalist, and etc, many times in the last few of days, and he continues to call me this after I had told him, I'm not ethnocentric and I don't like being called this

Tajik said he "used word-to-word quotes from the reliable Encyclopaedia of Islam" [107], a source which he claims to have with him. I want him or anyone else to post the quote from the Encyclopedia of Islam here so we can see if he is telling the truth or lying to us. It should say exactly as this '"The political history of Afghanistan begins in the 18th century with the rise of Pashtun tribes (known as Afghans in Persian), when in 1709 the Hotaki dynasty established its rule in Kandahar and, more specifically, when Ahmad Shah Durrani created the Durrani Empire in 1747 - the first Afghan Empire and the forerunner of modern Afghanistan." I assure you these lines (which were written by User:Tajik the other day) are no where found in the Encyclopedia of Islam.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

@Dougweller. I have no idea what you and Ariana310 are arguing about. I never claimed Sabawoon.com to be a reliable source. I said the information found about the "last Afghan Empire" in that site is accurate, it's the same as what you find else where in other source. My argument is that there were a number of Afghan kingdoms or empires in the past, such as the Lodi dynasty (1451-1526), the Suri dynasty (1540–1556), the Hotaki dynasty (1709–1738) and others, so how can you write in the article that the Durrani (1747-1826) was the "first Afghan Empire" (this is User:Tajik's POV) You guys don't have a clue about Afghanistan's history and you leave comments telling others who is right and who is wrong. I find this very funny.Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I have to post the same quotes until you accept them?!

• "... The year 1160/1747 marks the definitive appearance of an Afghan political entity independent of both the Safavid and Mughal empires. ..." - D. Balland (2010). "AFGHANISTAN x. Political History". Encyclopaedia Iranica, online ed., Columbia University.
• "... The country now known as Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century, when the supremacy of the Afghān race became assured: previously various districts bore distinct appellations, but the country was not a definite political unit, and its component parts were not bound together by any identity of race or language. The earlier meaning of the word was simply “the land of the Afghāns ”, a limited territory which did not include many parts of the present state but did comprise large districts now either independent or within the boundary of Pakistan. ..." - M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Introduction". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV
• "... The territories now known as Afghānistān were occupied by Iranian tribes during the Aryan migrations in the second and first millenia B.C., incorporated in the Achaemenid empire by Cyrus, and after the conquests of Alexander (...) disputed between the Greco-Bactrians and the Parthians (...) In the first century B.C. th ere was a fresh influx of Iranian tribesmen under the leadership of the Kushān tribe of the Yueh-Chi. ..." - M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Pre-Islamic history". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV
• "... The territories that form modern Afghānistān belonged in the first thousand years of Islamic history to different provinces, and although these neighbouring provinces, often shared common vicissitudes, they did not at any time form a separate entity. Nor did the Afghāns form a state of their own until the days of Mīr Ways, and more especially Aḥmad Shāh Durrānī. ..." - M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Mongol period to the rise of the Afghan national state". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV

Tajik (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik has failed to show "the first Afghan Empire" being mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Islam. All of the information that Tajik is quoting is available in 100s of books at google books search, or at other online encyclopedias such as Britannica, as well as at US government sites, which we can verify ourselves by a few mouse clicks, and, I have no problem with it. Everybody knows that the modern state of Afghanistan was formed in 1747 by Ahmad Shah Durrani.

However, I disagree with where User:Tajik wrote in the Afghanistan introduction that the Durrani was the "first Afghan Empire", that is Tajik's POV only. He wants us to forget about the Afghan Lodi dynasty, Afghan Suri dynasty, Afghan Hotaki dynasty and also Turko-Afghan Khilji dynasty. These were powerful Afghan kingdoms that ruled Delhi Sultanate of India and the Persian Empire.

User: Tajik edits the Afghanistan articles with controversy, like someone is trying to alter, forge, and corrupt it, defame the nation, it's people and culture, and so on. He removes the Afghanistan history template from the Ghurid Dynasty and leaves a bizaare comment in the edit summary "a) Afghanistan did not exist at that time and b) the Ghurids are not exclusive property of Afghanistan c) the political and cultural effect on India was much greater", even when he knows perfectly well that the kingdom was centered or based inside today's Afghanistan. This is what I'm complaining about User: Tajik.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is that here it doesn't matter if the material at Sabawon.com is accurate or not, Sabawon.com can't be used as a source. If it's accurate, find a source that meets our criteria at WP:RS. You need to understand how we work -- we require reliable and verifible sources, and we expect sometimes that these will be in conflict and accept that - in other words, 'truth' isn't our goal, and although I know little about Afghanistan I and others know quite a bit about what we look for in sources. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I know you're a little confused, and I know you're unfamiliar with Afghanistan's history. Again, the Sabawoon site is not the issue here. As for me, I'm an expert on the history of Afghanistan.Ahmed shahi (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"As for me, I'm an expert on the history of Afghanistan" - I'm afraid that is irrelevant unless you can cite your contributions with footnotes or references to reliable third party sources. That is how Wikipedia works, it isn't about what you know but what you can cite. SGGH ^ping! 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My comment was only directed to Dougweller, not to others.Ahmed shahi (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Ahmed shahi: the following sentence is totally clear:

• "... The territories that form modern Afghānistān belonged in the first thousand years of Islamic history to different provinces, and although these neighbouring provinces, often shared common vicissitudes, they did not at any time form a separate entity. Nor did the Afghāns form a state of their own until the days of Mīr Ways, and more especially Aḥmad Shāh Durrānī. ..." (M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Mongol period to the rise of the Afghan national state". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV)

The Durrani Empire - also know as the "Afghan Empire" - was the first empire that was defined as "Afghan" (which is just the Persian word for Pashtuns). It was founded by Afghans, it was backed by Afghans, and its identity was Afghan. No other empire before fulfilled these requirements: the dynasty of Sher Shah Suri was not Afghan in identity, was not Afghan in language, and was not backed by Afghans. The same goes to the Lodi dynasty that, like all the previous Sultanates of Delhi, was based on a strong Turkic military and a Persian-Islamic cultural and administrative core. The Durrani Empire was totally different: it was based on a national movement within the Pashtun tribes that had started during the short-lived reign of the Hotaki. The first king of the dynasty, Ahmad Shah, was directly elected by tribal members. And the natioanl identity of the dynasty (and empire) was "Afghan": Afghans ruled, Afghans administered, Afghans from various tribes were sent as governors to conquered regions, Afghans were relocated to Non-Afghan regions (i.e. Balkh, Herat, etc.), and Afghans enjoyed the favor of the king. The Afghan national state (see quote above) begins with the Hotaki and Durranis. The Durrani Empire was the first Afghan Empire. There was no "Afghan Empire" before it, and strictly speaking, there was no "Afghan Empire" after it. Maybe the word "Empire" is a misnomer. Tajik (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik, you said that you "used word-to-word quotes from the reliable Encyclopaedia of Islam" [108] so where is the mention of "the first Afghan Empire"? As I said previosuly, this is just your POV and using the unverifiable source to back it up.

You're trying to confuse the situation. The "state" of Afghanistan doesn't have to be ruled or run by ethnic Afghans, in this case Pashtuns, in order to be called "Afghanistan" or the "Afghan Empire". Large parts of Afghanistan were made up of Punjabi people (of Punjab region), Baloch people (of Balochistan), Sindhi people (of Sindh), and Persian people (of north-eastern Iran). The ruling dynasty was Pashtun Sadozais.

The Lodi dynasty, Suri dynasty, Hotaki dynasty, including the Khilji dynasty were all "Afghan kingdoms" or "Afghan empires" in the same way, depending on how one looks at it. They had a territory that was governed by them, it doesn't matter who the inhabitants of their territory were because we're dealing only with kingdoms or empires. In modern times we use "administrations" like the Karzai administration, the Obama administration, and so on.

Therefore, your are wrong by saying that the Durrani dynasty was the "first Afghan Empire", and you failed to provide a source which mentions that. You can avoid all this nonsense by just saying that the Durrani Empire became today's state of Afghanistan. This is the best way to describe Afghanistan, but you like to make things controversial and that creates edit-wars. And, you should stop removing the sourced phrase "Afghanistan meaning land of the Afghans" from the intro because that is very important for readers to know.

TO admininstrators, User:Tajik shouldn't be trusted because he lies and purposly misquotes information. He stated all the way at the top that "Sabawoon.com is a Pashto language newspaper with well-known affinities toward Pashtun nationalism and even the Taliban-movement. It does not mention its authors, contradicts leading scholarly encyclopedias, and promotes without any doubt Pashtun nationalist propaganda, for example the claim that "Pashtuns are 65% of Afghanistan"." Well, all this is User:Tajik's lies because at least he should've said Sabawoon.com is in both English and Pashto language, and, he wants to make all Pashtun people as Taliban supporters. The site actually states "More than sixty five percent of the population speaks Pashto" but Tajik purposly misinterpreted this. There is a big difference between someone who can speak Pashto language and someone who is ethnic Pashtun. Tajik has done this in other discussions as well and is continue to trick you here with his words. He told User:Inuit18, Ariana310, and User:Alefbe that I accused them of POV pushing in this discussion [109], [110], [111] but if you scroll up no where did I call them that. This is probably why he was blocked so many times in the past.[112]Ahmed shahi (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Domination of edits and reverts by a number of Korean accounts

Page: Balhae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Kim Gu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Jang In-hwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Yoon Bong-Gil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Koreans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kuebie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing up to the 3RR limit at the Goguryeo article.

• 1st revert: [113]
• 2nd revert: [114]
• 3rd revert: [115]
• 4th revert: [116]

He has a long history of reverting objective edits unfavorable to his nationalist views. Editing wikipedia required neutral point of view, for example, different nationalist views. A domination of edits and reverts by a number of Korean accounts to some Chinese-Korean and Japanese-Korean dispute pages over a few years they become biased. During past two months, User:Historiographer, User:Kuebie, User:KoreanSentry and some less used accounts often appear in the same editing wars reverting other views. There may be sock puppetry in it. Revision on those edits and reverts and contributions from other nationalists would restore their neutrality.Sammyy85 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a content dispute, so that means you have both broken WP:3RR, each party has reverted the article 4-5 times... SGGH ^ping! 15:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have left a 3RR reminder on both accounts, however it is clear that Kuebie has a history of edit warring and the changes he has made to the above article are fringey and weighted POV. I've also notified the other party. SGGH ^ping! 16:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've simply reverted the 115.42.156.50 IP's (comical) initial edit. The sort of catalyst of the whole edit-warring. Clearly an SPA, although it's odd Sammyy85 is keen to favor the IP's version. The Goguryeo article is extensively sourced and cited, with dozens of editors participating on its content since 2005. Sammyy85 claims that the Chinese scholar is not named in the source, and because of that it somehow makes it unreliable (the name IS given, hence the reason why I reverted his deceptive edit). Interestingly enough, Sammyy85 has used this exact report on the edit-warring noticeboard (result was stale). Which leads me to believe he's trying to silence me or have me blocked through various channels, instead of admitting to his obvious deceptive editing. And no Sam, wikipedia should not be home to some nationalist chest-thumping contest. One of the reasons why wikipedia advocates the use of credible sources, to circumvent any nationalist slant. Akkies (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is because Kuebie, Historiographer and myself are using same old account where as these Chinese and Japanese trolls are using multiple accounts to edits popular Korean articles under their POV. Sammyy85 is not providing reputable sources for his edits therefore his another troll.--Korsentry 04:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Block review

They've agreed to change their username. Let's leave it at that and AGF. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC) was reported at WP:UAA yesterday. Let me state that I do find the idea of using a timestamp as a username somewhat annoying. On the other hand, I do not see how it could possibly violate our username policy to such an extent that it warranted an indefinite block. As a matter of fact the relevant policy section is quite clear that confusing usernames are discouraged but are not blockable. I said all this both at UAA and the user's talk page, only to find a bit later that my decision not to block had been overturned. This user was not vandalizing, trolling, or engaging in other disruptive behavior, and in fact remained perfectly calm and civil in the face of nearly hysterical threats from another user to change their name or be blocked. The third, oft-overlooked option of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names was apparently not even considered by those who had a problem with this name. The user has made their case to on their talk page. I think wider input is needed to review how this block is supposed to be helping prevent damage to Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC) As I see it you followed policy: confusing but not blockable. Perhaps a signature tweak is/was a better option for this user. Unfortunatly this incident may have permanently chased this editor away. Jarkeld (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Not yet apparently. They have posted a civil, well written response to this block on their talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)I made the block after a discussion on UAA in which several editors and administrators opined that they find the username disruptive. There is currently a discussion on the editor's talk page, though I'd like to ask the peanut gallery to back off from there. I stand by my decision to block, but I will abide by any consensus that emerges here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC) As I opposed HJ's recent RfA, he'd be an obvious target if this was a contentious block. But really, it shouldn't be. Perhaps I'm missing it, but Beeblebrox states that it's "quite clear" that confusing usernames are not blockable; I don't see that at all in WP:UNCONF. In fact, this part - "admins should use their discretion and common sense" - is most appropriate here. This user's name is going to cause confusion and disruption in every discussion in which they participate. If this user cannot immediately see why this username is highly disruptive and agree to change it, then they are not here to help build an encyclopedia but to otherwise prove some sort of point or further a personal agenda. Good block. Tan | 39 19:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Pettiness that plays so rough. Peanut gallery (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I agree with Tan here. Not only is the username confusing, but the user's unwillingness to change it is disturbing. Aditya Ex Machina 19:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC) As Tan 39 said above, this timestamp as a username is highly confusing and disruptive. Per WP:U; Good Block. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I understand what Tan is saying, but I'm with Beeblebrox in principle. I think it's a damn stupid name (and I fail to understand why the user totally refuses to even consider changing it, only changing his/her sig) but I don't think it's against policy per se. The user taking the piss, and refuses to discuss it sensibly is disrupive however, and for that reason I now agree with the indef block. If the user refuses to discuss it on their talk page in sensible manner, perhaps the access to their user talk page should be stopped as well. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I too concur with the indef block, not if it had been performed outright, but after a very understanding discussion following on from a UNC template where the user seemed to never get it - I find it difficult to WP:AGF with that lack comprehension. SGGH ping! 19:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Part of that may be because no one seems to have told him there is a difference between changing your signature and changing your username. I don't care what the username policy is - if you have a problem with his name, ask him to change it before you block him, and tell him how to do it. Prodego talk 20:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I did this just as you were posting :) As for asking him before you block, they did ask him, several times, it just isn't on the talk page anymore. It is in the history. SGGH ping! 20:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC) He responded to that positively and by trying to fix it. And he got blocked anyway. Then 80 zillion people went to his talk page telling him to fix this problem, which he repeatedly tries to fix. But he misunderstands. Instead of assuming he didn't know what he was doing, he gets blocked and gets fun messages accusing him of trolling, telling him he is being insensible, etc. Where has he ever made a statement indicating he refuses to fix something? Prodego talk 20:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC) A reminder that Wikipedia policies are supposed to be descriptive and not prescriptive. I'm not sure a circumstance such as this has come up before, so one would not expect the username policy to deal with it specifically. I disagree with the contention that the name was not disruptive, as it would clearly cause continuing problems wherever it appeared. Having the editor change it was the right call. Whether the block was good or not depends on whether the editor was attempting to make the change in good faith or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Good block, he was causing confusion. If he really wants to continue to edit constructively as he was, he can just create another account and move on.--SKATER Speak. 20:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Well, he has a disruptive username and he hasn't sorted it out yet. I wonder who he is? Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Was about to say the same thing before being edit-conflicted umpteen times. I'd like to know how that person ended up choosing that specific username, assuming he/she has had absolutely no Wikipedia-knowledge whatsoever. –MuZemike 20:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I would suspect he has copied it from an edit summary or page history because he or she thought it inventive, which it is, though also impractical. SGGH ping! 20:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I agree with this block. The username is unnecessarily confusing and therefore disruptive. Usernames are a means for others to identify you, not a venue for self-expression or for making a funny point. The editor should remain blocked until he changes both his username and his signature to a non-confusing string of characters.  Sandstein  20:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I admit I certainly do find it a very odd choice, but I question the need to block for it. I would again mention that for "confusing" or other problematic usernames that are not so blatantly disruptive as to warrant an immediate block, we have a dedicated forum specifically for dealing with them. He was asked to change it, and indicated he didn't want to. So the next step, since asking them didn't work, is to throw them out until they change it because it is harming Wikipedia so badly that we would be better off if we didn't see it and get "confused"? I can't get behind that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Crat note

Ok, I renamed him to something new that seems appropriate. Lesson to take away from this is that sometimes if a user seems to be acting in good faith, we should extend it to them and try to AGF. I'm known as being very tough on username enforcement, but many times we need to remember that new users aren't as experienced as us and as long as they aren't breaking stuff (spam, etc), we should try to play nice. MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate to continue a resolved thread, but I want to stick up for the users involved because they did try to be nice, over about two dozen posts (some only in the history now) it wasn't a case of talk, confuse, block. SGGH ^ping! 20:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As this issue is not specifically covered under the username policy, I've raised it at WT:U. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User GalaicoWarrior, "Founder of the Gallaic Revival Movement."

GalaicoWarrior (talk · contribs), also editing as 74.47.100.65 (talk · contribs) -- see [117] - is running through articles mentioning Iberia and replacing Iberia with Gallaecia [118], etc. Some of his edit summaries have been reverted as OR, nonsense, etc. but he clearly sees himself as on a mission. I'll inform him of this discussion now but I'm off to bed soon, so if others can keep an eye on him, advise him, etc. it would be useful. He's new so hopefully he can be persuaded to moderate his revivalism. Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

He is also adding references to the entirely unattested (not to say fictitious) "Gallaic language": [119], [120], [121]. +Angr 20:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And using his IP address to edit/revert/replace stuff he's edited with his account. What do we do about this? Shall I warn him to stop and block if he continues? Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My rather cursory look at this makes me think he should be blocked as a hoax-only account, though I'll have to dig a little more before blocking myself. Blueboy96 20:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The langauge is certainly not true, and the attribution of everything Iberian to the Roman province seems a little too much. SGGH ^ping! 20:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruption, edit warring and 3RR on my talk page.

no admin action needed, user already apologized and explained their error. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR has been edit warring over messages that I had receved from another editor on my talk page. To make things worste, I had already told several times to direktor not to post on my talk page (I supose that also means, not to delete edits...). Here are some usefull diffs: 1) The deleting by direktors of posts on my talk page: [122]. 2) As seen, he broke the WP:3-RR there. 3) This is far from being the first time he edits on my talk page knowing that I asked him not to, here: [123] (the edit itself, see last comment), or [124], here you can see it in context. 4) One exemple of his clear acknolledge of that fact (knowing that I don´t want him posting on my talk page) is found here [125] where you can see him saying that he didn´t noticed me about a ANI report he donne on me, because, in his words: "the user instructed me not to address him". So, he doesn´t warn me on ANI report because of it, but edit wars with another user when he feels to? I had already done a report on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but an advice I had receved was to take the report here. The excuse direktor has been using is that he touth that the user posting on my talk page was a sock, but it isn´t. Direktor has been using this "he is sock!" excuse in several ocasions and for reverting edits on several articles. I am reporting him for doing it on my talk page, where he has been edit warring and where he brole the WP:3-RR while knowing that I had deniyed him access to my talk page. He obviously had many other ways to react there, he chouse the worste. He has also been very disruptive on the Flag of Yugoslavia article where he has been editing the article against all other users (6 in total) even ignoring the recomendations from the project itself (Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, other comparable cases and where he also made racial and other attacks on oposing editors. I just want to see how many rightfull reports on him are going to be ignored (if...) here. Hoping that will not be the case, I send best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC) His mens rea depends on who he believes the user to be a sock of? A banned user? Though I agree editing anothers talk is very bad form. SGGH ping! 20:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I think you guys need to move on to WP:ARBCOM, these constant threads at ANI are ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC) It´s up to you to end this, but calling rightfull reports "ridiculous" is contraproductive... FkpCascais (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Here we go again... People were just starting to miss you I think, User:FkpCascais. Two things old FkpCascais accidentally forgot to mention: 1. Here's the post I removed: "i met the same problem as you with the same user:DIREKTOR, but on another side of his influenced area of wikipedia. His making the wikipedia project dangerously drifting away on the articles regarding his political position. Look to set a dialogue on his discussion page. I'm with you." 2. I know I violated WP:3RR, but I did so under the assumption that the account was a sockpuppet (3RR does not apply to reverting socks, I think). And with the history of those articles, I really think my mistake may be considered an understandable error. I emphasize: every single account that restored sock edits & pushed the changes Theirrulez pushed on those articles turned out to be a sockpuppet. No exceptions. And there have been many, many sockpuppets as any involved admin will know. They are blocked by the bushel-full as DUCKS, User:Butler.banana just got banned yesterday. I understand my actions were rash, but they were in good faith, and removal of (confirmed) sock posts on those articles is practically a daily chore (I ought to hire a secretary). Anyway I had already admitted my error, restored posts and have apologized profusely, explained my actions [126]. What interests me is the motivation behind FkpCascais eager exploitation of an honest mistake... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Agreed, this is a non-issue and no admin action is called for. I think it would be best if you two avoided each other. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Does removal of user comments need to be justified?

Does removal of user comments from an article talk page need to be justified? Per WP:TPO it seems to me it does. Even if it's blatant abuse - I think it's common sense that you have to explain the reason in the edit comment for the edit in which the user's comment is removed. No?

Is citing WP:NOTAFORUM sufficient justification for removing a user's comment? I agree that WP:NOTAFORUM discourages such comments, but it says nothing about removing comments that do not comply. Nor does WP:TPO.

The issue that prompted all this was a comment that arguably violated WP:BLP. That's a much more serious violation and does of course warrant removal, but in this case the comment was removed four times in a row. , and each time only NOTAFORUM was cited as justification. Is that acceptable?

The impression I get from reading WP:TPO is that removing user comments should not be taken lightly, and yet here we have people removing comments whose removal might have been justified, but they only cited WP:NOTAFORUM.

My question is not whether removal of this particular comment was justified, but whether it was justified when citing only WP:NOTAFORUM.

Discussion: Talk:Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard#WP:NOTAFORUM_does_not_trump_WP:TPO.

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is "Yes", as already stated. The post was NOT directed to an improvement of the article. WP:TPO is quite clear that "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" includes "Removing prohibited material such as libel". Maybe the wrong reason was given for removal, but saying that someone currently facing trial for rape will rape again is about as prejudicial as I can imagine. WP:BLP is even more clear. Whatever the reasons given for removal, no way should that comment have been allowed to remain on Wikipedia, on any page whatever, and this editor has already been advised of this. The fact that weaker reasons for removal were given when stronger ones could have prevailed (and eventually did) is irrelevant in this case. Rodhullandemu 22:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the removal of this comment and with what User:Ianmacm said - I would have removed that comment on sight, it is completely inappropriate. This is a no-brainer for me, the user who made the comment should be spoken to. Perhaps WP:NOTAFORUM was not enough policy to quote, but the subsequent policies quoted in subsequent removals are justification enough. I suspect the admins who removed it saw it as an equal no-brainer. SGGH ^ping! 22:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your overall question, yes it must be justified, proportionate and accountable, but as I said this case was an obvious one for me. SGGH ^ping! 22:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just going to say you did not answer my question. Thank you for answering it. It was obvious for you and others, but it was not for me, not initially at least. That's why clear and proper justification needs to be stated, even when it appears obvious, especially when the comment is being removed and restored multiple times, as was the case here. That's my only point, and I don't understand why it's so difficult to get anyone to concede this point. It's not like agreeing with my point means you think the comment should not have been removed! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The removal is fine, talk pages are for article development. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"My question is not whether removal of this particular comment was justified..."

"The removal is fine, ..."

... Sigh.

Are you saying that removal of any comment that is not about article development is fine? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because that is what WP:NOTAFORUM says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw nothing at WP:NOTAFORUM even addressing the removal of others' comments, much less sanctioning it. Because of that, I added a reference to WP:TPO where the issue is addressed. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Not every comment that is not about article development needs to be removed, and there are plenty of talk page comments that don't relate to article development that should stay, but that's why IAR exists. Every comment that is not about article development is subject to potential removal, and "because I felt like it" is enough of a reason to remove an irrelevant comment.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 22:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP is not a bureaucracy so yes, we let lots of non-development stuff (such as editor banter) slide and nobody cares. It keeps the atmosphere friendlier, which is always a good thing. The idea is to use sound judgment and don't get into edit wars. NOTAFORUM gets invoked when someone starts using the talk page for tendentious debate, which is exactly what that particular interchange was. Even if the removal was dubious, per WP:BRD don't keep reverting. Discuss the issue instead, preferably on the user talk page of the person you're having the disagreement with, rather than on the article talk page. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Good heavens- of course BLP was an underriding concern and the main reason I removed the comment: just because I didn't say so is no reason to restore the obviously unsuitable comment. Pure wonkery. –xeno^talk 22:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh. Do you mean "underlying" or "overriding", not that it really makes any difference? This topic has now been raised in three forums all to the same general effect and if nobody is going to bring anything new to the party, I suggest we move on. Rodhullandemu 23:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, both actually. Sorry for making up words. –xeno^talk 23:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Xeno, I didn't restore the comment simply because you didn't say BLP was an underlying reason -- I restored the comment because I had no idea that was the underlying reason. In retrospect, yeah, it's obvious, but at the time all I saw was WP:NOTAFORUM as the stated justification, which was in and of itself not sufficient justification, and is my only point here: Comments of others should not be removed simply because they do not comply with WP:NOTAFORUM. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is, and this is codified at WP:TPG. –xeno^talk 23:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't see where Comments of others should be removed simply because they do not comply with WP:NOTAFORUM. is codified at WP:TPG. Can you point it out please? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of one's comments is very close to censorship, and as such should be used only in extreme situations. Usually, when a comment should be removed, it also should be oversighted. If the comment would not be oversighted, it probably should be left in place (which, however, does not preclude warning or sanctioning a user who made it if it is a personal attack, a legal threat, and so on). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Piotr... finally!!! someone who understands my point! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, I disagree completely, because there is also an issue of relevance to building an encyclopedia, to which WP:NOTAFORUM is mainly directed. Irrelevant comments that amount to libel tend to be deleted per WP:BLP, but not necessarily oversighted because that function is generally reserved for personal details. The middle course is Admin deletion of libellous comments to remove from public view, and thus protect the WMF from legal action. But oversight is only for really tendentious stuff and not "X blows goats"-style vandalism. Rodhullandemu 23:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Piotrus is being silly, comparing that reversion to censorship. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Most of the time stuff like that inserted into articles is just reverted, not even deleted, much less oversighted. Calling for oversight of all crap removed from talkpages (or retention of all crap on talk pages that doesn't meet the standard of requiring oversight) doesn't make any sense. It's fine to revert disruptive stuff from talkpages that doesn't have a plausible encyclopedic purpose. It's a good and healthy thing that there are many internet forums were people can freely debate politics, and those seeking such forums can easily find them. None of them happen to be Wikipedia.

If the stuff has to be left on the talkpage once it's there, then for NOTFORUM to mean anything at all, the only way to enforce NOTFORUM is to block the user. Does Piotrus think that blocking users is further from censorship than reverting inappropriate comments? That's just absurd. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"If the stuff has to be left on the talkpage once it's there, then for NOTFORUM to mean anything at all, the only way to enforce NOTFORUM is to block the user." First, we have to distinguish if we're talking about a BLP violation or something similarly serious, or just plain NOTFORUM banter. If the former (which it was in this case) then I suspect we have near-consensus support immediate removal, but only if it is so noted (which it was not in this case). In the case of pure NOTFORUM banter I think a simply comment with a link to NOTFORUM should more than suffice. If the banter continues then further steps can be taken, including, ultimately, comment removal and user blocking. But those are extreme measures which should not be resorted to initially, which appeared to be the case here since removal was justified purely by lack of compliance with NOTAFORUM.

This is not an isolated case. Note the issue cited in the next section. I think we need to have more clarity on this issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, removal of forumy content is allowed per TPG, there is no need to explicitly refer to BLP if that is also an issue; of course it might help for future cases where someone edit wars to restore it as in this case. –xeno^talk 00:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, there's a similar discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, originated by the same user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. In retrospect, I probably should have linked to the original discussion on the other talk pages, rather than starting independent discussions there. But I'll suggest everyone move to this discussion at this point. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Point them to the guideline talk page. General discussion isn't for ANI and this incident is resolved, the removal being endorsed by numerous parties. –xeno^talk 00:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The removal incident was never the issue in this ANI as I stated clearly when I opened it.

The issue was always and remains whether merely referencing WP:NOTAFORUM is sufficient explanation for removing others' comments. Hardly anyone has even addressed this question here, and of those who have the consensus seems to be more "no" than "yes". --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I was actually going to suggest the opposite, moving it to the talk page most relevant to save clogging ANI up too much with what may become a policy discussion. SGGH ^ping! 00:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been getting suggestions for both, hence I have started the multiple discussions, including this one. Very confusing. Sorry. Anyway, if everyone agrees to continue only at WT:TPG#Removing_others.27_comments_that_violate_WP:NOTAFORUM, that's fine with me. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, the real problem here was not misinterpretation of NOTFORUM by one side or the other. It was edit warring. The multiple reversions were just wrong. After the second or so revert there should have been discussion. Rodhullandemu could even have protected the talkpage for 5 or 10 minutes and posted a message asking everyone to cool it. As for the comment removal itself, it's almost always been sufficient to decide such things with common sense. I noticed that most of the users removing the comment were experienced while those putting it back were relative newbies. Newbies, please understand, there are lots of dynamics and customs around here that are not written down in policy documents. It takes a while to get used to them; until you've been active for a while, if someone tells you "you're doing it wrong", can you give some credence to the idea that they might know what they're doing? If you have questions, engage them in discussion. Don't get in a revert war. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The anon IP addresses the "newbies"? How presumptuous. I'm not an admin, but not a newbie either. Removing others' comments without appropriate justification is not the way things are normally done here. The edit war was a problem, but not the real problem. The real problem was that hose removing the comment were simply repeating and re-repeating their "justification", which was an irrelevant reference to WP:NOTAFORUM. The comment history speaks for itself.

delete 1: rm, WP:NOTAFORUM

restore 1: its a talk page for us to discuss the article

delete 2: rv. per WP:NOTAFORUM; you are correct that the talk page is for discussing the article, but that is not what your comment is doing.

restore 2: It is true that such comments are inappropriate and possibly disruptive, but deleting such comments is even more disruptive. Just leave a friendly comment/reminder about WP:NOTAFORUM.

delete 3: Sorry, no. This really doesn't belong on the talk page because it violates WP:NOTAFORUM. It has to go.

restore 3: Sorry. Please review WP:TPO. Removing comments of others is serious, but allowed in some cases. "Violation" of WP:NOTAFORUM is not one of those cases.

delete 4: "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article" (quote from WP:NOTAFORUM)

restore 4: (WP:NOTAFORUM does not address much less sanction your behavior: removal of others' comments; see WP:TPO for that.

delete 5: Reverted good faith edits by Born2cycle; Removed as obvious and gross breach of WP:BLP. Kindly stop this disruption.

Note that the first time anything other than WP:NOTAFORUM was mentioned as a justification in the delete comments was in the 5th and final delete. The quote in delete 4 is from WP:NOTAFORUM. It's like no one on the delete side was paying attention to the discussion until the final delete 5, when, finally, the real legitimate justification to delete was mentioned: WP:BLP.

The whole point of this ANI is to verify whether, regardless of how justifiable a given comment removal may be for unstated reasons, merely referring to WP:NOTAFORUM is sufficient basis to remove a user's comment. I say it isn't, and such removals should not be tolerated; so if that's the only justification provided for removing an others' comment, the delete should be immediately reverted. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

NOTAFORUM is sufficient. If you had questions you should have just asked them, not edit warred. BLP was brought in to put a stop to the nonsense more decisively, though it failed to do so. If you look at the edit counts of the other restorers, most are newbies. If they're not newbies, they have even less excuse. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Among the few who are actually addressing the question here, experienced editors are saying merely referencing NOTAFORUM is not sufficient basis to warrant removing others' comments. There are excellent reasons that experienced editors have prohibited removing others' comments at WP:TPO, except in the specific exceptions listed. In case you didn't notice, strict application of WP:BLP is a relatively new thing at Wikipedia; about the last year or so, and it is not yet reflected in all the policies. At least it's reflected in WP:TPO now (you're welcome). From now on hopefully at least everyone involved here will know to reference WP:TPO rather than the irrelevant NOTAFORUM when justifying the removal of others' comments. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that more discussion would have been helpful in promoting understanding for those confused, and have already said as much. The removers erred in assuming the point to be obvious (which to most commenters of this thread, it was) rather than realizing that some participants needed more explanation. I don't understand why you think off-purpose talkpage rants are something precious that need to be kept on display for all to see. They are still in the page history if someone wants to research them. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

When those doing something with no or irrelevant explanation, confusion should be expected.

I don't understand how you could be paying attention and yet think I "think off-purpose talk page rants are something precious that need to be kept on display for all to see". I've said nothing of the sort, and it's the kind of thing that WP:TPO clearly allows removal of. Have you read it? Have you been reading what I've been saying? Have you read my opening remarks in this section? Where do you get this idea? I'm really curious, because if that's the impression you're getting, there's no telling what else you might be inexplicably confused about.

My only point centers on the indisputable fact that WP:NOTAFORUM says nothing about, and has nothing to do with, justifying the removal of others' comments. Deletions of others' comments based entirely on referencing NOTAFORUM should not be tolerated. Editors should treat other editors with more respect than that, even if one is just ranting. That's not to say that the rant should not be deleted, but that proper justification be provided when the rant is removed, and simply citing WP:NOTAFORUM does not even begin to cut it. Not even close. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

NOTAFORUM was sufficient in the initial removal's edit summary to signify what the problem was, even though it didn't go into further analysis. WP is not a bureaucracy and it was reasonable to expect most editors to understand the issue right away. Once it was clear that some users didn't understand, then more explanation would have been apropos. WP:NOTAFORUM now says "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines" which I hope satisfies you, but even before, it's never been the case that every commonsense action anyone does has to be spelled out ahead of time in some policy document. It's enough to connect the action by reference to a relevant principle, then deal with the WP:BRD cycle if it occurs. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User violates BLP on talk page

DD2K (talk · contribs) is reinserting a comment that refers disparagingly to Joseph Farah, and a journalist for the Greeley Gazette in violation of BLP. He then posts a legal threat warning on my page for bringing the BLP violation to his attention, which he removes as "bullshit". --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I see neither legal threat nor BLP violation. (At least not in these diffs...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How in the heck is that a WP:BLP violation? Being a birther is considered a fringe conspiracy theorist. The comment is tame, to say the least. There are factual errors in it(read birther theories), and it relates to the topic on the page. This is just ridiculous. Also, the user is abusing the tools and reverting my edits. Am I really missing something here or what? DD2K (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The content in the talk page is irrelevant unless it's a personal attack or vandalism. Biographies of a Living Person violations are not included. Sorry. --A3RO (mailbox)

True. Let's just trout'em both. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just ignore each other for the time being. Thanks for being stellar editors! --A3RO (mailbox) 23:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake was the legal warning. It was in jest because I thought the BLP warning was absurd. I can't believe it was serious. Still, the use of rollback by Saturn is a violation. Anyway, sorry for this. DD2K (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Re A3RO: not sure about the present case (haven't reviewed it); but your statement that the BLP policy does not apply to talkpages is shockingly inaccurate. –xeno^talk 23:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Hang on a minute here. First, the remark about this Farah guy could be interpreted as a BLP violation, as it suggests he's not in his right mind. As BLP violations go, though, it's pretty lame. Second, the "legal threat" was a good-faith but mistaken interpretation. Third, and most importantly, the statement that BLP violations are allowed on talk pages is flat-out, dead wrong. BLP violations are not allowed anywhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What Bugs said. Yes, BLP applies on talk pages. Yes, that was a pretty mild BLP issue, but still not helpful to building an encyclopedia, and probably violated NOTFORUM as well. No, there's no legal threat. If we can all just act civil and professional, the issue goes away, no? Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, I knew that BLP violations are not permitted anywhere, articles, talk pages or anywhere else on Wikipedia. But for those not familiar with American football, a receiver has to have "both feet in bounds" for it to be a good catch. Using the phrase of not have both feet in bounds just means it's incorrect, no good, out of bounds, wrong. DD2K (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Where was it said that BLP vios are allowed? When I said it was not included I meant that there was never one in the first place provided in the diffs. Some people like to beat dead horses. --A3RO (mailbox) 01:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"The content in the talk page is irrelevant unless it's a personal attack or vandalism. Biographies of a Living Person violations are not included." Two or three of us, at least, read that as implying BLP vios are OK on the talk page. And it still looks like that's what you're saying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User making disruptive legal threats

A disruptive user, Craigcobbcreativitypractitioner (who apparently is Craig Cobb) has been posting legal threats on other users' talk pages. For example, see [this diff], which includes the quote

I do understand how you people do not desire any mentions whatsoever of the tenured Prof Macdonald on my page, and that hateful, controlling "choke point" fact against NawlinWiki and Wikipedia will be in any future litigation in event of my assassination by ARA as well.

This is a deeply paranoid, deluded man who believes he will be targeted by an imminent assassination and is threatening to have Wikipedia sued. He is also threatening to "expose" various Wikipedia editors by making Podblanc videos. I believe speedy intervention of some sort is necessary. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for the legal threat. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Went to block, but was beaten to it. Fairly textbook application of WP:NLT really. The account could possibly have been blocked per WP:REALNAME, as well, at least until we confirmed whether it was the real Craig Cobb. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC).

Links to automatic downloads

In my role as a user, I clicked on a reference in the article Comparison of iPod managers, and was stunned when a program immediately began downloading to my Mac. I immediately deleted the reference, along with another reference that also contained an automatic download, and searched the page history to find out who had inserted the links.

The first link was inserted by Ceyockey. [127] I have notified Ceyockey of this discussion. The second link was inserted by IP address 92.104.196.163. [128] I tried to notify 92.104.196.163 that I was discussing him/her/it, but there's no talk page for that address.

I'm a fairly infrequent Wikipedia editor, so am not sure whether this incident is worthy of reporting, or whether this noticeboard is the place to report the incident if so. If I've made any errors, please pardon me.

Languorous Lass (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, it looks like whoever added the links linked directly to the software's download page. That's obviously not ideal, and you did the right thing by removing the links. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC).

Thanks! I was amazed when I realized that the earlier of the two links has been there since September 2008, and that people have been updating the software version numbers and dates on both links since then.

Surely there must be a Wikipedia policy against automatic downloads, but I couldn't find one anywhere on the site -- the topic didn't seem to fit under vandalism, unless the program is malware, and it didn't seem to be that. Lankvei, can you -- or can anyone else -- direct me to the right policy? Languorous Lass (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL may have something. I did notify the IP in the end, whether it is still active or not I didn't check. SGGH ^ping! 00:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL discusses such stuff. Yeah, just remove the link and put a comment in the edit summary and maybe the article talk page. I wouldn't bother notifying the editor who put the link there of the removal since if they still care about it they can check what happened on the article page. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bullying and user bias

filing user has been blocked per WP:DUCK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Something odd is going on here. I made some pretty simple edits to an article (Yesterday Was a Lie). I changed the tense to past (it said April 2010 was in the future), replaced a dead link with citation needed, replaced another citation needed tag with a accurate citation, and added a couple reviews of the DVD release which seemed appropriate. I also removed one or two weasel word sentences, because the information in them was the opposite of the information in the respective citations. An editor named User:Beyond My Ken reverted every thing I did with no explanation. I tired to ask him why and his response was to open a sock investigation into me and not tell me. He didn't answer my question about what was actually wrong with my edits, because there is no answer. This editor states that people (and me) are "downplaying" negative reviews. But actually it looks like he is trying to downplay positive reviews by casting them as "negative." If you look at the article history you can see that he keeps inserting things into the Variety review that are not actually in the citation, and that he has removed a link to Rotten Tomatoes which shows that the Variety review was counted as "positive." He also keeps introducing invalid citations to supposed negative reviews (a dead link and a link to an unrelated article in a different newspaper!). So it seems this person has some type of bone to pick and is pretty preoccupied with introducing fake information about reviews into the article. I think an admin needs to investigate this person to see if they have some type of bias regarding this subject. I think he got caught with his pants down trying to include wrong information in the article and now he's trying to change the subject.Vulcanism (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC) In fact, I am correct. According to his talk page, User:Beyond My Ken has a previous username of User:Ed Fitzgerald. His biographical information is here. This matches <redacted unauthorized personal information> and <redacted unauthorized personal information>. I do not think someone affiliated with this film production should be permitted to edit the article.Vulcanism (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Moved to WP:COIN Vulcanism (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Please see [129] and [130], especially [131] 2nd item. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Mr. ken, none of that explains why you 1. added false citations to support "negative" reviews in which the citations do not link to anything about the film, 2. erased part of the Variety quote to make it look like the review attacked the film's story, 3. erased a link to Rotten Tomatoes re: the Variety review being positive, or 4. insist on referring to the April 6 DVD release as in the future. Again, it looks like you are trying to deflect attention away from content issues and false information that you are putting in the article. Vulcanism (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC) User:Vulcanism is, without any doubt now, the latest sock of User:Sorrywrongnumber. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC) User:Beyond My Ken is, without any doubt now, desperately trying to evade having to explain why he has introduced fake citations and altered quotes into the article. Vulcanism (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I don't know whose sock drawer that Vulcanism belongs in, but it is undoubtedly a sock account. The editing history makes that quite clear. I will be blocking presently. --Jayron32 04:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson tag

There are complainants tagging the Scarlett Johansson article that are not willing to make actionable suggestions to the editor (not me, I reviewed it a for GA Sweeps 9 months ago). Instead they insist on putting the {{peacock}} tag on the article and a WP:SOCK is now throwing around WP:MPOV claims. I have stated on the talk page why this is a very bad time to be defacing the article with pejorative tags. Ms. Johansson's page is highly visible with a regular audience of 8-10K viewers per day and a ramp up in her audience is visible (http://stats.grok.se/en/201004/Scarlett_Johansson ) as the publicity for Iron Man 2, which opens on Friday, impacts her viewership. There is now a tag team of editors unwilling to make any actionable suggestions but who insist on tagging the article. I am not sure if reverting a WP:SOCK could get me a WP:3RR violation, so I am here. I have requested either a list of actionable changes so that the willing and able editor can respond either through WP:PR or an individual WP:GAR or a clear statement at a community WP:GAR to gather collective feedback. Instead, the page was just retagged at a time when her viewership is about to bound upwards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I went to remove the tag, but I see it's gone already. I'll help to keep an eye on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. I see sentences in the article that could stand some rewording, but nothing that can't be addressed through the regular editing process and/or talkpage discussion. I don't think the problems rise to the level of needing the prominent "peacock" tag at the top of the article, and given that this is a prominent BLP page, I am concerned that new readers might incorrectly think the allegation of "peacocking" is directed at the article subject herself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

NYBrad, My point exactly. Thank you.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a WP:BLP dimension to maintenance tagging? SGGH ^ping! 07:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fansite nonsense and offsite drama spilling onto the project

Some time last year, I was contacted by an acquaintance who goes by the handle "Shougo B'stard" online concerning the fact that the English Wikipedia article Dengeki Sentai Changeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) extensively copied information from his personal fan site on the series. I checked the article, and removed and rewrote most of it while devolving into heated discussion, mostly because the information was copied and his website was not being used as a source. I tried to work on removing the copyright violations, and the discussion ended.

Yesterday, Delaluz (talk · contribs) added a link to Shougo's fansite to the article, and it was reverted by one of the external link bots and myself. I advised him that the link was not allowed, and he retorted by saying that other fansites were used. I rectified this by removing as many other fansites as I could, while asking a friend to add links to official sites where he could. Delaluz began this discussion on my talk page where I attempted to clarify both Wikipedia's and the topic area's editors' decision on fansites, but then he merely began a discussion on the article talk page where he begins to accuse me of having some sort of personal vendetta against Shougo by not allowing the fansite in the external links section. While investigating the content more, I realized that almost all of it is lifted from Shougo's site and I remove all of the copy-pasted and paraphrased information and introduce new content translated from other language projects. This has only appeared to make Delaluz only more irate that the fansite is not being linked because he claims that Shougo is some sort of "recognized authority" (pulling a criterion from WP:EL).

Ohnoitsjamie provided a third opinion (Delaluz went to WP:3O), but this has not seemed to quell the issue. The page is not high traffic, and it appears that for four years, most of the content was lifted directly from the fansite. This needs a wider audience because it's not getting one from its normal traffic.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Massive template breakage

MC10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sometime today, near the morning UTC, MC10 (talk · contribs) decided to replace all instances of {{subst}} with <includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>.

This broke hundreds of the user warning templates.

I, along with a few admins, mainly Tim Song, managed to clean up this mess... At least to my knowledge. I may have missed a couple. To this end, I request, along with the below, to test every twinkle enabled user warning message on Example (talk · contribs)'s user talk page.

What do I want this thread to do? I would personally like an edit filter to prevent the above from ever happening again, or a note to never replace {{subst}} with what was noted above. If anything, I would like an admin to at least warn MC10 to not do this again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The user has been notified.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That was a bit overeager. From the few I checked, only {{Welcome-anon}} was actually broken, since the use of safesubst broke the substitution check here and always displayed the error message. The changes to {{Uw-create1}} and all others I spot-checked were perfectly good, and a clear improvement.
I for one am happy that MC10 went through the uw- templates and made that change, I've made the same change to a couple dozen templates myself last week. So no, we need not prevent usage of safesubst, and not really need to test all messages since the warning templates will all have survived the change unless other mistakes were made, and as far as I can tell only the one welcome template was touched.
Amalthea 09:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User:AmyFuller

Can someone please block this disruptive editor? All they do is change "mother" to "woman" on Christianity and abortion, claiming consensus while they have zero edits to the talk page. Seems like a sock of User:CarolineWH to me, who made exactly the same edits to Christianity and abortion a few months back, but I won't bother with a checkuser request for this.--Atlan (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

12 hour for edit warring and vandalism. The SOCK possibility may be confirmed with a WP:DUCK test but I'm a tad busy packing! :) SGGH ^ping! 08:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also CharlieC24 (talk · contribs · logs) per this edit. SGGH ^ping! 08:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

71.163.232.225 using discussion page as a forum for unrelated arguments

The user 71.163.232.225 has been repeatedly using the discussion page Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases to discuss sex abuse and complain about the Catholic church. He has also been making disruptive changes to the article itself, much to the anger of other editors. It appears that he has even been removing large chunks from the discussion page and he was abusing the editor joo. He has created multiple sections on the discussion page exclusively for the purpose of arguing about sex abuse rather than discussing the article itself. Various other editors had been asking him to stop on the talk page itself.

I myself went to his talk page, User_talk:71.163.232.225, to repeatedly warn him about using discussion pages for chatting about the topic, but instead of stopping his argumentative and confrontational behaviour on the discussion page, he merely removed the contents of his talk page in an attempt to hide the warnings. He then came to my talk page and, in a confrontational tone, told me to stay away from his. User:Hyperdeath then joined him. In fact, it seems that User:Hyperdeath is quite a supporter of the IP editor.

From comments by User:LAz17 and User:Salvio_giuliano on his talk page, it seems that this IP editor has also been causing trouble in the article House of Crijević.

Here are some of the diffs for the page Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=359622104&oldid=359599043

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=359424236&oldid=359415091

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=359340080&oldid=359230182

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=358759122&oldid=358757979

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=358551816&oldid=358551353

...and here, he removed a huge chunk of text from the discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=358520829&oldid=358454735 (Huey45 (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC))