User talk:PhanuelB: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:02, 28 June 2011

Welcome! Hello, PhanuelB, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! pablo_hablo. 19:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zlykinskyja for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. FormerIP (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhanuelB,
I've sent you an email concerning this case.
Amalthea 09:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phanuel. Since checkuser has shown that you are not a sock of Zlykinskyja‎, I apologise for any worry or inconvenience caused. It looks like you have not been about anyway, so you've probably missed to whole thing. As I said in the SPI report, you have not edit-warred or broken any rules, so you come out of this without a mark against your name. Hope you will continue to contribute at Murder of Meredith Kercher. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

I would consider this very carefully, and consider striking your remarks. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hi. I am the User:Wikid77 you have been suspected of being. If they had evidence of WP:sockpuppetry, then you would have been blocked from editing, maybe for a month. Perhaps you already know these WP policies. I am glad you were not blocked, because they would have blocked me too! (as being considered the same person). You must be careful not to word messages that sound like someone else, because if they conclude you are, then both people will get blocked. I guess, in reality, if they connect you to a formerly blocked user, then both of you get, maybe, a 3-month block. I am thankful for the danger, because it makes me understand how it feels to spend years accused of something you didn't do, and live in fear of what they will accuse you of next. Wikipedia did not invent "persecution" and thus, no one alone is to blame for the problem. The Bible advises, "Remember those in prison". And so we do.

I have, just today, read your posts from weeks (months) ago, and I am impressed with your knowledge of such important matters. We have many other highly intelligent writers, including medical professionals, and there is a proposed Wikimedia 5-year plan to greatly improve the long-term quality, including the various other-language Wikipedias. Please feel free to edit other articles about those subjects, and help explain the issues for our millions of nice readers.

Also, note that most WP policies are, currently, very well-written to encourage kind and helpful editing, even if it seems mostly hateful around here. The problem is those good policies are not enforced, so it seems like Wikipedia is a bad environment, but it is just a problem of being unable to enforce the clear rules already written. Einstein warned, "Power attracts people of low morality, and I have found it an invariant rule that tyrants of genius will be succeeded by scoundrels" (or similar wording, probably in German). I think Jimbo Wales (and the rest) have tried to impart compassion, but unfortunately, sufficient controls are not yet in place to thwart bad behavior. Anyway, most articles on WP are not censored, and if you keep working on numerous other articles, then any wikihounding will be reduced, as they lose interest in snooping about your activities. They might read every word of this talk-page, but lose interest, in stalking, if you edit a lot of various articles.

Well, as far as sockpuppets, I can testify that you are not me! So, you have one more person to come to your defense (or defence). It is like expecting a new witness, during an appeal, to testify for you, and then you are acquitted. At that point, months later, you are still free to write the rest of the story. Try to remember all the kind readers here, and avoid hostile people who probably tortured animals when they were younger, and know what to expect from them. Anyway, again, welcome back. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF and WP:SOAP before contributing further. Casting aspersions such as these are unacceptable, and will lead to a removal of your editing privileges. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To put this in plainer language, the next time you ascribe motives to other editors like you just did again at the end of this contribution, you will be blocked. Argue on content, not on imaginary motives of other contributors, or bring your contributions elsewhere. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

As you appear unable to edit without soapboxing and treating Wikipedia like a battleground, you have been blocked for disruptive editing for a period of 24 hours. Again, accusing a group of editors of holding an agenda is an unacceptable disruption and violation of collegial editing norms. The onus is on you to assume good faith of your fellow editors - throwing wild accusations around in furtherance of your points in an attempt to bully and intimidate others will not be tolerated. Once you return, you are encouraged to take the "comment on content, not contributors" advice to heart. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly manner

Hi, Wikid77 here again. I am impressed by your continued friendly manner. Some people try to bait others into outbursts, as if trolling for trouble, so I applaud your amazing composure. I guess arbitration is the last hope when other people violate so many policies which, for years, have encouraged accurate and balanced articles, including to note major controversies in the first section of articles about controversial topics. Almost any person in the news for years gets a separate bio article. I cannot emphasize enough that many WP policies are excellent and fair, if only dozens (hundreds?) of people would not violate them every microsecond. For example, the policy WP:LEAD clearly states to explain controversies in the intro of an article (otherwise, readers would have no idea that notable people are outraged by the specific events). This "aint Weaselpedia" where all people mealy-mouth events to censor their coverage or pretend there are no shocking controversies: no, that's called "policy violations" which censor article contents. Most articles are collections of opinions expressed in newsreports or books (etc.), where even emotional opinions are directly sourced or quoted, but emotional opinions are a major part of Wikipedia. The key idea is that the opinions written in the article text must match the opinions in the sources, in relative proportion to the coverage (science articles state scientific opinions, mostly). An opinion by a U.S. Senator has almost the rank of President because the 100 senators decide U.S. foreign policy and remain in office for decades, while a president has a term limit of 8 years. A quote by a U.S. Senator could be summarized in an article's WP:LEAD intro section because of that impact. Anyway, as a reminder of WP's excellent (oft-violated) policies, I quote from WP:LEAD about addressing notable controversies in the first sentence of an article (rather than treat it as a coroner's report of details):

"The lead section (also known as the introduction or the lead) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." (excerpt from WP:LEAD)

Many other WP policies are just as sensible, such as WP:NOTCENSORED. As you probably know, Wikipedia has broad coverage: for the JFK assassination alone, there are 20? articles, even including: "John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories" (with many opinions). There is no absolute rule: "1_event=1_article" (not true). Instead, in reality, a major controversy gets several articles (17? about the Manson family). Simply consider, by asking the question, "What would many open-minded people write?" then that gives a good idea of what the articles should contain. There have been 16 articles about the fictional book and film The Da Vinci Code. A real-life investigator should get a separate article, including his major investigations. Again, your composure is remarkable, but please note that numerous intelligent people are here to help. It is rare to find 9 (or 15?) people who all want to violate numerous policies to censor the same article. I regret that your valuable time has been wasted by their antics. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why thanks for the encouragement. I have great respect for Wikipedia but I'm not sure they've got the right formula for the really contentious issues like the trial of AK. I'm in kind of a holding pattern now as the guilters are really in charge over there. I had watched the article for about a year and had actually registered for an arbitration that was supposed to happen. I didn't quite understand when the arbitration was called off. A month or so ago I dropped by and my jaw dropped when I saw what had happened. Within hours of my arrival this time attempts were made to get me banned based on false statments. Periodically other people with pro-innocence POVs are showing up and appear to be shocked also.PhanuelB (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been shocked by their months spent systematically censoring, removing text. The Wikipedia "formula" was not designed to counter so many severe mindsets. A balanced person just works to expand or refine an article for a few weeks, then moves on to others, but not in this case. Normally, there would be lists of forensic evidence, key photos of the people and crime scene, perhaps even a subarticle just for the "conspiracy theories" of opinions to imagine how could 3 have joined in the act. Instead, the text is trimmed to zip. Plus, it isn't just a few users; it is several who "take turns" from month to month, to trim details. I know there was extreme worldwide bad-mouthing of those students, enough to cause outrage: "Don't let them get away with it" (they even used "bleach" with no chlorine smell! diabolical!). I had seen only the June 2009 trial session claiming "police brutality" but did not edit the article until mid-December, and I held only a faint glimmer of ever understanding the case. Then, wow, 3 months later, all the reliable sources revealed an amazing explanation of the numerous controversies: 15? cases of a misquote or innuendo or sex fears that seemed to condemn them. Almost nothing left to indicate guilt. No sex items or potions in the room. No wine consumed. Did you hear the screams? No, no, no. Then they testified at trial how she never cried, but the family revealed she wept with grief. Also, there are so many fascinating issues about the culture: if you realize how fascist officials are targeting your new friend & your sister knows how police investigate, then perhaps you should reply: "I wasn't with them. I don't when they left or returned. We're not together". For people who really understand fascist pressure, then that is not a suspicious reply, at all. It was noted that most facts are revealed in Italian courts during the "inquisition" of trial, not merely presented as in British or U.S. courts, with formal Rules of Evidence, to be considered by both sides. It seems as if a person can accuse, "They flew around the room grabbing their DNA, footprints and fingerprints which vanished in their hands", and the court judge would simply reply, "OK, now we will ask other witnesses when this flying occurred and how much evidence they grabbed to vanish". It is as if enough people need only say, "We didn't see them leave, but the chimney was open" so, aha, they must be guilty. How many times was their local news allowed to say how "confidential sources" reported massive evidence of the Satanic rite with a blood Celtic Horse drawn on the wall, extensive torture, and brutal abuse of such young innocence? No wonder people come in packs to Wikipedia to make sure no one allows them to get away with it. Such events need to be cited as examples of modern propaganda and brainwashing that drive people to even violate ALL the policies of a website, to push their obsessed conclusions, unaware they have all joined the mindset cult of Mignini. I think this should be noted in arbitration: how many people were flooded with false reports, for 2 years, so they refuse to allow the reliable sources to state otherwise. Think about it: typical users do not censor an article in that fashion. There has been some major psychological distortion driving these people. Are any of them paid to suppress evidence? It is just not the way normal people act. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing people of being "paid to suppress evidence"? That is serious paranoia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.172.223 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:PeterVanSant.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:PeterVanSant.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — raeky T 18:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to rephrase your latest statements

Good day,

You are hereby kindly invited to reformulate your latest interventions to remove innuendo aimed at other editors. Your comments are becoming increasingly personal and combative. It is time to consider whether you want to contribute to article writing or prefer fighting on talk pages. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the allegation that no other page violates NPOV as much as this one. I think the block on Wikid77 and Zlykinskyja should be removed so that there can be more balance in the discussions. I would reiterate that attempts to block me based on false statements were made within hours of my arrival this time around -- that is a fact. Statements about Mignini have been fully sourced with statements by reliable sources. Please note that I have provided proposed re-writes of sections including the introduction. Actual edits would result in edit wars.PhanuelB (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the sockpuppetry accusations within hours of your return under your present identity are unfortunate, you will want to consider that it was a product of the battleground editing climate left by the two editors you mention. In the same vein, regardless of the strength of your conviction, when your arguments derive from discussing edits, sources and their validity to alleging a cabal of editors intent on suppressing a point of view, you are poisoning the editing climate, something that cannot be tolerated.

As for the other two users, one has been indefinitely banned by the community for what appears to have been viewed as both excessive advocacy and excessive xenophobia, and her unblocking subject to, I expect, a clear promise to avoid both in the future. Wikid77 is currently topic banned by community consensus and not blocked, and he could appeal the topic ban directly if he wanted to and were able to give reassurance that the behaviour that led to the topic ban were a thing of the past.

Considering the advice he's been giving you here, though, skirting along the edges of his topic ban, I'd be pessimistic about his chances.

Regardless, any editor is welcome to participate, provided that no matter the strength of his beliefs, he remembers to assume good faith of other editors at all times, refrains to treat the article like a battleground, understands that Wikipedia's role is not to right great wrongs nor to lead the reader to play armchair CSI. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the conduct of the editors who made false statements attempting to get me blocked should be excused as the "product of" the misbehavior of two previous editors who made the same arguments I did is completely and categorically false. I note that the Wikipedia policies that talk of assuming good faith do make provision for concluding that bad faith has occurred. The arguments I make are that the article is devoid of the conclusions of the vast majority of reliable sources who have provided commentary on the case -- I named 10 of them in WP:BLP section. Those issues are not great wrong or battleground issues. The problem is that when you hear the same thing from a number of people, you can't solve the problem by banning them as has happened here. The two editors I named need to be un-blocked.PhanuelB (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made the arguments indeed, and it has been disputed from what I can see. I also notice however that "words being painfully twisted" in your latest commentary is again ascribing motives in a tone that is unlikely to help furthering the discussion and I invite you, again, to reword that part of your statement.

As for the two other editors, they were removed from the discussion because of their conduct, not their views. Wikid77 is not blocked and can appeal his topic ban himself if he wishes, the other user knows the venues to use in order to appeal the community decision that banned her from the site. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rationales for the administrative action adopted against the users in question are clearly explained in the ANI reports here and here, just for reference. Super Mario Man 20:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:PeterVanSant.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:PeterVanSant.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikid77 here again. That image appears to be very close to qualifying for fair-use display. This type of image, to be allowed to remain on Wikipedia, must be used in a live article and must be considered "iconic" such as being THE photo used by CBS. Note that a person's photo is allowed for fair-use display because of being a specific photo (an iconic publicity photo), rather than being an image which merely identifies that person. As another example, a person's photo displayed by the police qualifies as a fair-use photo when described in a article as being a "mugshot" for the arrest, or "photo displayed in police hall of shame" or such. For a publicity photo, the article must concentrate on the use of that photo as being the "CBS publicity photo" for the person, and state similar wording in the article. Again, the key concept is that a specific photo is being displayed, not a general photo of a person, and hence the specific photo avoids the catch "freely licensed media could reasonably be found", because no free photo would be that particular, specific publicity photo. It's all a matter of the wording in the article: same photo, but always noted, in the article text, as being THE publicity photo used by organization "WXYZ". Specifically, an article could state,

"John Smith has worked for WXYZ since 2007, as noted in his biography webpage at WXYZ.com, which also displays his publicity photo (see photo at top). In that photo he is shown with gray hair and wearing a necktie, as typical attire worn on some broadcasts."

Or use similar wording, always noting the photo as being a "specific photo" not just a picture of him. If the image gets deleted, then re-upload later, after moving the article into the main article space. As you know, a fair-use photo is not allowed in talk-pages or user-space drafts. Also, an admin who does not like the guy might still push to delete the photo for some other vague reason. As always, this message is just a friendly reminder, so feel free to do as you choose. I don't want to seem demanding, as if writing in the ominous, threatening tone that some have used against you! I always want you to feel welcomed, as a valuable member. I have read your draft about Van Sant, so I see you are quite proficient, and I already conclude: Wikipedia is you. Never forget that you are a very valuable member of WP: many admins fight each other and get overly upset and quit after 2 years. Perhaps they realized they wasted their life by reading every word of a person's talk-page and looking to start a fight. Anyway, I hope you will return from time to time, and perhaps find that the Wikimedia Foundation managers have dealt with the people who threatened you. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of fair-use rationale

If a photo gets deleted, or you wish to upload a different photo, then below is that rationale-text which you can copy back, for the next time:

{{Non-free use rationale
| Article           = User:PhanuelB/Peter Van Sant
| Description       = Peter Van Sant
| Source            = www.cbsnews.com
| Portion           = the image is part of a bio on the cbs web site
| Low_resolution    = yes, JPEG format with only 10 kb of data
| Purpose           = Peter Van Sant Page
| Replaceability    = Not replaceable.  It was the image Mr. Van Sant has choosen as the best one of himself.
| other_information = Wikipedia Policy (1) The picture does not have a logo prohibiting it's use. (2)It does not replace the original market role, in fact it enhances it. (3a) The use is minimal. (3b) the picture is only a portion of the bio on the CBS page. (4) has been displayed outside of wikipedia (5) content is encyclopedic (6) Meets Wikipedia's image use policy (7) is used in at least one article (8) does significantly increase readers understanding of the topic (9)  Fair Use Argument: (1) Per Wikipedia:Publicity photos, it is part of a press kit.
}}

As required, I noted as being a small photo, "Low_resolution = yes, JPEG format with only 10 kb of data". That rationale-text can only be used for a live article, not for a draft page. Often, the most frustrating part of rabid deletions is forgetting to keep a separate copy somewhere, as the basis for the next one to create. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After several attempts to remind you to edit in a collegial manner and avoid the confrontational tone indicative of a persistent battleground mentality, this edit offers more of the same. Upon your return, you are again instructed to focus on content and to cut out the sniping, snide comments, innuendo at suppressing the truth and focus on constructive contributions. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And more of the same

Our rule about assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. Judging by your most recent additions to Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher, you are still intent on spreading innuendo, attacking, ascribing motives on other editors, you are trying to use arbitration as a threat to bully and intimidate others, but beyond your continued persistence in treating Wikipedia like a battleground, your persistent refusal to desist from violating the BLP policy after having been warned about it multiple times requires another time-out. This is getting tiresome. Once your block expires, you will have three options:

To accept, at long last, to edit in a productive and collegial manner. This includes also to recognize when you can't win an argument, doing so in good grace and refraining from using inflammatory language about the other editors whose arguments prevailed
To bring an arbitration case, and in this case you are highly advised to file it or shut up about it
To continue in the same manner, demonstrating that blocks aren't getting the message through and that a community ban will be required to protect the encyclopedia against the manner of your contributions.

And to make it perfectly clear, you aren't being blocked for what you are saying but the manner you chose to express it. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PhanuelB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The allegation that my comments about Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini violate WP:BLP is completely false. All statements are fully sourced 100%. Please provide an example of where they are not. PhanuelB (talk) 7:09 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

However, you still haven't addressed the main reason for your block, which is your combative attitude and battleground mentality. TNXMan 11:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PhanuelB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The request was to challenge one allegation. The allegation or battlefield mentatlity is close. I deny it, but it's close. The request here is to challenge the false allegation of WP:BLP violations. I deny that utterly and absolutely and deserve a detailed review. A note: the allegations that other editors are banning a large number of WP:RS because they disagree with their POV is supported by the evidence and facts. I repeat that the WP:BLP violations against Amanda Knox are grave because the article ignores the vast majority of reliable sources who have condemned the tribunal. Is arbitration the proper venue for that? Probably. So If I'm going to be accused of violating WP:BLP for lack of sources it should be stated where it was done. I don't care about the 7 day block, the issue is to be exonerated of one allegation. PhanuelB (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked becaus of battleground-like conduct, notably by saying "The "consensus" of a dozen or so people is diabolically opposed to what all the reliable sources are saying. The reliable sources banned from this article talk of public lynchings, hate, and witch trial hysteria. If Wikipedia gets burned on this one they will have earned it." ([1]). This unblock request does not adequately address this problem with your conduct. Sandstein 13:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi. Wikid77 here. Thank you for your patience: you are a valuable member of Wikipedia, but have become a victim of questionable allegations, again. Apparently, the dubious charge of BLP violations is difficult to verify, so the focus has been on any reason to continue this block. Complex BLP issues should be addressed in a different venue (after the block expires): if you do not (someday) clear your name of "BLP vio" then it remains, on your record, as if true. I think a major problem with your remark about "If Wikipedia gets burned" is the interpretation that the WP project (as a whole) will have earned adverse consequences, even if that was not the intention of the posted message. Hence, some administrators will feel that retaining the current 7-day block is a protection against similar comments. However, you had stated, 5 days earlier, that you had "great respect for Wikipedia" (this edit, 31-July-2010), but these admins might not have seen that comment. At this point, if you wish to go to arbitration, then I will request to join the discussion, as well. I know it can be frustrating to be singled out and accused of "battleground mentality" when many other people are also battling. A military action where there are no other people battling is called an "instant victory" not a battle. You seem to have exposed yet another flaw in WP policies: the concept of having a "battleground mentality" seems nearly impossible as a one-person problem. I apologize that I did not see, earlier, the absurdity in such a policy. If they want to continue citing WP:BATTLE, they need to list all participants to verify that all others are "peaceniks spreading love" on the talk-page. As far as BLP violations, I noticed that you were NOT the one making an unsourced accusation about a living person being a covert ghostwriter for an activist group (OMG!). Because some people get away with all kinds of policy violations, while others are blocked without valid reason, it is important to take some issues to arbitration, to at least see if others can follow your lines of reasoning. This project isn't called "Geniuspedia", so there is no guarantee that enough people, here, will ever understand, but it is perhaps the next step in elevating awareness. Yes, people have asked for why an article is considered notable, when there are so many similar crimes, but the inserted text listing the notable controversies was quickly deleted after insertion. Almost every avenue to avoid censorship has been tried, so that provides the extensive evidence you have needed to justify an arbitration. This 7-day block is just more evidence to present with your case. By now, you have probably read the arbcom policy, and learned:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_arbitration
a key point against you might be "no other editors" agree with you (because they were banned!).
if the arbcom group starts to side against you, resisting them might lead to topic-ban of 6 months.
beware false agreements, where opponents pretend, "okay you were right and can edit now" but they delete later.
expect to need to request enforcement of arbcom decisions in your favor.
if people violate so many policies to avoid "probably innocent" will they heed arbcom?
if people violate all arbcom rules, don't angrily accuse them and get a long block.

Again, feel free to ignore these opinions, and plan your actions depending on your own ideas about the situation. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:03 (revised 04:50), 12 August 2010

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PhanuelB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have twice submitted this form which challenged some but not all of allegations made against me. I don't care about the 7 day block. As stated before the allegation of battlefield mentality is close. In both cases the reviewer refused to address the issue of the specific allegations I wish to challenge. As clearly stated above I challenge the allegation of WP:BLP violations. Statements about Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini are completely and absolutely sourced so they aren't BLP violations. Discussion of the allegations against these individuals is central to NPOV treatment of Amanda Knox. The Murder of Meredith Kercher article is completely devoid of NPOV. The issue is being exonerated of the false allegation of WP:BLP violations. I don't even understand the details of the complaint. I also challenge the assertion of intimidation. Stating an intent to seek arbitration under Wikipedia's rules (which I do in fact intend to do at a time of my choosing) is not intimidation.

Decline reason:

I'm not going to address the BLP issues, as there's no need: battleground/intimidation is bloody obvious. Basically saying "if I don't get my way, I'm going to ArbCom" is intimidation, full stop. "Do, or do not do: there is no try". File your ArbComm request, or STFU about it. This type of battleground and intimidation is 1000% against the collegial attitude we expect from editors: be happy it's only 7 days. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I regret that the environment here has degraded into gruff, irritated people who act as if all your help, in carefully analyzing the various policy violations, is a drain on their time. As you and others have noted, over the past weeks, there have been disproportionate efforts to block the expansion of extensively sourced text about a notable case. This is not some attempt to promote an "arm-chair CSI" but rather, numerous professional CSIs, or other investigators, whose professional opinions are being excluded from the article. Anywhere, a call by Donald Trump to boycott an entire nation is headline news, to be stated in the intro to any article about that topic. When a financial leader advises, "Boycott" - people listen. Your frustration is well understood by Christians:

In some Christian doctrines, righteous indignation is considered the only form of anger which is not sinful, e.g., when Jesus drove the money lenders out of the temple.

Meanwhile, it is becoming obvious, from all the hostile reactions, the admin structure appears over-worked and strained to deal with any more issues, where many people have fought for months (but not battleground fights, ya right), to thwart the expansion of sourced text, despite protection by WP:NOTCENSORED. The general atmosphere of unpleasant accusations, seems to leave everyone else full of anger, with no zest for actually improving Wikipedia. I have heard that admin participation is declining: message boards are posting: "Backlog of requests need work" and the admin-burnout rate appears quite high. You seem to make more progress in writing other, new articles, and waiting for the day when more information will be accepted into the mainstream. I think there is ample evidence to create a Wikibooks entry, for use in teaching others about court procedures, false confessions, witch hunts, pre-trial publicity, prejudicing the jury, etc. I am fully expecting an ArbCom group to reply there is too little interest, among the current Wikipedia editors, to try to defend having an NPOV-balanced article, while others constantly want to pretend there is little evidence to decide events one way or the other. Just write an extensive draft Wikibook, about all the facts reported to date, and that could be used to extract text to expand the balanced coverage, from week to week. It appears that it might be easier to become an approved admin, yourself, to help with the work backlog, rather than gain approval to expand text for NPOV-balance. Wikipedia's key principle WP:WELCOME of "Be Welcoming" seems to have tarnished, and people are just too overwhelmed, by trivia, to care about decisions currently setting some major, worldwide legal precedents. It looks as though you will need to beg for time to be treated fairly, and I can't say the outcome would be fair, anyway. This project is drowning in 3.4 million articles and 13 million users, with no way to direct those people to focus on important articles. I am frustrated, by seeing how you are being frustrated in your efforts to think about the big picture, here. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back (but...)

Welcome back Phanuel. I don't think it is impossible that editors on MoMK will be able to work together from here on in, and it would be good to draw a line.

However, please let me draw your attention to some of the features of your comments made today, which I think are examples you might want to think about in terms of your overall approach.

Firstly, you start by saying something is a fabrication. I am not sure who originally inserted the material you are referring to, but you appear to be commenting on the behaviour of an editor and failing to WP:AGF.

Secondly, you make a claim that a living person was at some point living beyond his means and that that this implies he was living off ill-gotten gains. This appears to be your synthesis. Do any Reliable Sources make a similar sythesis? If not, then I would suggest that this is against WP:BLP and should be removed. You also speculate on the likelihood that the same living person stole money from a murder victim. As far as I am aware, there are no Reliable Sources that point to this. If you know differently, then please share, but otherwise I think this should also be deleted.

Thirdly, the issue you are posting about has been resolved. Your post continues the discussion, but its contents don't seem to be anything to do with the issue that had been raised. Instead you talk about your opinion of Rudy Guede and make a generalised claim about the quality of the article (if would be better, as I have said before, if you made specific claims about what specifically you think is wrong). Your comments to not appear to be connected to any dicsussion of content which might provide a basis for further discussion. This looks like an example of WP:SOAPBOX.

I don't mean to just jump down your throat as soon as you are back on the page, but please have a think about whether this style of post, which has by now become very familiar to other editors, is really doing anything to improve the article. If you continue is this way, you may just be a new collision-course, which will not be productive for you. In general, please to stick to dicussing content and propsals rather than veering off into monologues which, you must surely realise by now, are not getting you anywhere.

Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your posting about Guede as you still do not seem to comprehend that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as article pages. You cannot allege that Guede was dealing drugs or speculate on the source of his income based on some unstated claim that he didn't have any means of support. Even if you can prove he didn't have a reliable income through reliable sources, you still can't do it. I'd also be wary about claiming that information is fabricated unless, again, you have reliable quoted sources to back that up. Please take this as a final warning - if you violate WP:BLP on the talk page again I will block you. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statements are fully sourced. The allegations of WP:BLP violations by me against Guede are false. Please see that the text is restored.

From the CBS 48 Hours Documentary A Long Way from Home 4-Apr-08:

Peter Van Sant:"Ciolino, talking to the owner of the bar, learned that Rudy had even been banned from Merlin's because he tried to rob a bartender at knifepoint."

Paul Ciolino:"We know that Rudy has no visible means of support and is able to pay rent, go to clubs, and do all kinds of things,"^[1]

PVS:"Why would Rudy have targeted that house, of all places, to look for money? These are a bunch of college student,"

PC:"Rent is due at that time of the month. It was the 1st. And rent’s due. So everybody knows college students are gathering up the rent at that time," Ciolino theorizes.

PVS:"Police told Ciolino Meredith took out 250 euros the day she was murdered and the money is missing. Rudy’s fingerprints were found on her purse."

Angel Face by Barbie Nadeau:

"He[Rudy] lived on the periphery of the university scene in Perugia and could easily pass for a student. He was known to be a small-time drug dealer." P103

Bob Graham Express.UK 25-Aug-10

"It reveals the third person convicted of killing British student Meredith Kercher had committed six serious crimes over 33 days before the killing. But robberies carried out by small-time drug dealer Rudy Guede were ignored by Italian authorities, raising suspicions that he was a police informer."^[2]

Nick Squires Telegraph.co.uk 5-Dec-09

"Guede was already well known to police by the time he killed Miss Kercher. As well as being a drug dealer with a criminal record for minor drugs offences"^[3]

Nick Pisa Mail Online 29-Oct-08

"He[Guede] was known to police after being stopped and searched several times and was known as a petty thief and small time drug dealer."^[4]

PhanuelB (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phanuel, another thing that I think is a problem with your style is that, instead of answering questions and points raised by editors, you very often tend to just post a load of quotes which miss the point. Please read again what I wrote above, and think about how you might be more careful in future. Black Kite appears prepared to block you again. However, if you avoid the types of problems I have described then there will be no reason for this to happen. Please also consider that your current approach is never going to succeed in achieving the consensus amongst editors required to make significant changes to the article. There is no point to you just carrying on regardless, because you are likely to either be permanently blocked or just go from short block to short block, and even if that didn't happen you would just continue to fail to get anything changed as regards the article. --FormerIP (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; Phanuel, you still don't seem to understand the difference between facts, speculation and synthesis. You alleged, in your talkpage posting, that Guede was paying the rent at the time of the killing by dealing drugs. Now, it is completely possible that he was, but you can't synthesise that even if you have reliable sources that say he had drugs involvement in the past. Do you see the difference?

Also, you are further speculating on possible motives for the claim that Guede stole from Kercher's purse. This is also synthesis and cannot stand. One thing I would point out though - if you say that having a wealthy sponsor would make Guede less likely to steal, surely your theory that he was making large amounts of money through drug dealing would also make it less likely? This seems contradictory. Nevertheless, both theories are merely speculation and don't belong here. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Details about wording

6-Sep-2010: I see that people are being very "technical" about the wording of your posts. In general, try to avoid text that says someone "is something" rather than "did something". Even though other people get away with attacking someone (such as writing, "She is a murderer" - don't write that), try to focus on people's actions instead, such as, "She was tried for murder but the conviction was overturned by appeal and she was granted a new trial, presumed innocent". It's the difference between writing, "He is a racist" versus "People said he made racist remarks". The difference reminds me of the Christian adage, "Hate the sin not the sinner". Hence, avoid negative text that says someone is a drug dealer, a petty thief, or a burglar, but focus on he returned to the scene of the crime the next day to claim he didn't do it, so he had no problem returning to the scene of a crime and acting innocent. I think it is valid to say the judge at trial wrote that the man took a knife from the school kitchen (as the judge's opinion) even though not convicted of stealing a knife. There is also another "shade of gray" in Italy: a person can be searched by the police in Milan, then "booked" for possession of stolen property, possession of a deadly weapon, or illegal entry, but then be released to a train by the police, rather than charged with crimes sent to trial. Because of my topic ban, I am not allowed to discuss the specifics of the AK case (until Sept. 11), but meanwhile, think of the "rules of order" about Wikipedia text, as focusing on actions rather than a "person is-a something". So, the text can mention that a judge concluded someone was stealing a computer, but not call that person a "burglar" in a Wikipedia article. I hope that helps clarify the subtle differences in the wording. Also, perhaps some people don't realize the first appeal in Italy allows a "new trial based on the evidence" (hence, overturns the verdict else why have a trial of a guilty person). So, upon accepting the first appeal, the suspect is again "presumed innocent" but another appeal might not allow a trial de novo and hence no longer presumes the suspect as being innocent after the first appeal is over. In the U.S., a person might be seen as "guilty" during the appeal unless the appeal ends with granting a new trial, big difference. While awaiting a new trial, it would be a vio of WP:BLP to say this person was convicted of sexual assault, murder (etc.) because they are presumed innocent to be judged for guilt in the new trial. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid. You're dancing on the edge of your topic ban (again) which will expire soon. I'm sure you don't want it to be extended or even get indef blocked as your topic ban states if you don't adhere to it. You should now better and have some patience.TMCk (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am an uninvolved admin, with no previous knowledge of your edits. Partly as a result of the posting of the matter at AN/I, I have taken a look at your edits. You seem to be here solely to improve our coverage of one particular matter. While this is not forbidden, it is viewed with some suspicion by many of our community, with good reason as history has shown that people who come here with an agenda seldom work well with others in the compromise and genuine debate that is how we work here. I have also looked at your block log and see that you have three previous blocks for excessively combative interactions. I note that, although you have toned things down a little since your last block, your most recent post shows much the same POV-pushing tendency as your very first under this account. It seems clear to me that if you continue as you are, you will merely get yourself blocked and maybe take up a lot of other people's time and energy in the process. I am therefore making you the following offer.

Read and digest WP:TRUTH and ask yourself honestly if it applies to you.

Make any future edits at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher solely focused on collaboration. I want to see you saying things like "What do other people think?" instead of you telling them what to think.

Ensure that any future edits at Murder of Meredith Kercher are always in line with a stable and verifiable consensus at the aforementioned discussion page. This includes things like tagging for neutrality. If in doubt, let someone else do it. When the talk consensus is that obvious, it will be obvious to others as well.

If you fail to take this offer up, which is a reasonable one and merely recapitulates what all good editors here are supposed to do anyway, I will block the account indefinitely, which you would then of course be free to challenge, using the unblock template as I see you have before. I am confident you are intelligent enough to see that it is better to avoid this course and accept my offer. Please feel free to contact me (posting here is fine, I am watching this page) if you need clarification or any further help or guidance. Best wishes, --John (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John. I will take you at your word when you say are an uninvolved admin. I would welcome a neutral administrator on this page, we haven't had one yet. But I'm not sure you've taken the time to hear both sides of this one. I'm a little stretched for time as I've been doing too much of this at work and people are on to it. I think if you take a little deeper look beneath the surface you'll find there's more to this one than you might think.

Please look at the following exchange: here. This is prima facie evidence of an effort to use administrative powers to enforce a non-neutral POV intented to influence current events.

Black Kite: "It has also been suggested that the article is protected for longer, as the trial appeal starts next month."

MLauba:"I suggest we look at a protection during the appeals as a separate matter."

WP:TRUTH I am quite familiar with this policy. I think if you look at my posts you will see that I invariably say that this doesn't reflect what reliable sources say. My sole complaint with the article is that it does not reflect what WP:RS say, particulary as it relates to facts about opinions.

Black Kite and MLauba have repeatedly made false allegations against me of WP:BLP violations. All BLP violations are denied completely and absolutely and anyone who thinks different is invited to provide an example.

The "first" post you cite The Wikipedia coverage of the Amanda Knox trial has generally been excellent. It should if anything be greatly expanded. This would seem to prove that I didn't come here for WP:GREATWRONGS reasons.

Black Kite and MLauba are not neutral administrators. They have used threats, false allegations, intimidation, and double standards only against editors with a specific POV. Please note that efforts were made within hours of my arrival to block me based on false allegations.

The only allegations against me that I concede might be close are the WP:BATTLE and WP:CIVIL. In these allegations there has been a double standard applied against those with a specific POV. All other allegations including threats, intimidation, WP:SOAP, WP:OR, WP:SYN are utterly denied.

I request that you take a careful look at my claim that editors and administrators here reject proposed reliable sources with specific POVs. This includes (1) Doug Preston (2) Paul Ciolino (3) John Q. Kelly (4) Steve Moore, and (5) Peter Van Sant. See here and the response: "PhanuelB, for reasons that have been explained in extensive detail on countless occasions, the sources referred to fail to meet the criteria for inclusion." This issue is important becuase this was a central part of all three blocks that MLauba imposed upon me. It was not a violation of WP:AGF to state the obvious truth that editors were using POV as a criteria to decide what sources are reliable and what aren't. The WP:RS I have proposed constitute the defining commentary on the case. PhanuelB (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest yet again that you withdraw the personal attack on myself and MLauba which is again made without any justification; you are only proving to the community that you are a net negative here. You also claim that admins have accused you of BLP violations without evidence. OK then, I have looked at one archive of the talkpage, Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_25, and ...

Trying to get the article to repeat allegations with no evidence that the trial was "rigged"
Trying to get Preston's personal opinions of Mignini as "crazy and obsessed" into the article
"Mignini's history of threatening people with defamation suits is well documented and is part the well deserved ridicule he faces"
Attempting to insert your own synthesis about Guede into the article, and when an editor pointed out that you could not do that, and that only the verdict of the court should be stated, you replied "reliable sources state the findings of the court are a sham".
Stating "The concerns over WP:BLP against Amanda Knox are grave; the concerns about WP:BLP against Mignini and Guede are without merit." - in other words, "BLP doesn't apply to people I want to violate it against"
And that's in just a single archive. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phanuel, Your very first edit, despite saying "The Wikipedia coverage of the Amanda Knox trial has generally been excellent." goes on to state "The portrayal of Guede is negative and should be more so" You can see perhaps why you come accross as a somewhat evangelical bringer of The Truth™.
It is your belief that the people you keep referring to are "a substantial majority of reliable sources" and that they "constitute the defining commentary on the case". You have not demonstrated that this is true, merely reiterated it.
It is your belief that RG committed this crime alone, and you may be correct in that. But that was not the finding of the courts, and we should not slant the article to account for your, or anybody else's beliefs and opinions about what happened on that night. pablo 09:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to your statement, what was central to your three blocks were continuous violations of WP:DE, WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA, a behaviour that carries on to this day, through multiple attempts to offer you both olive branches and avenues to make yourself heard. To wit, your very reply. Do also note that merely accusing an administrator of not being neutral does not, in fact, shield you from future administrative action from him.
We have spent 3 months trying to get you on board with us and invited you to separate the wheat of your arguments from the chaff of your attacks. To this day, the only thing you have to do is propose small, incremental changes using {{editprotected}}, proposing your wording, adequate sourcing, a non-confrontational reasoning on why it should be included and what it would bring to the article, and a willingness to compromise. It's no more complicated than that. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--John (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PhanuelB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

John: Do what you have to do but I have been denied the opportunity to defend myself in front of neutral administrators on the Administrator noticeboard. Good faith means I get to state my case.PhanuelB (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This template is used to draw independent review of administrators, as it just did. If you could please outline why you feel this block is inappropriate, and/or how you will change your behaviour in the future, that would be helpful. Kuru (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PhanuelB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

John,Kuru: There were many false allegations made against me [|here] I left a post saying I had to go to work and needed more time. I have a right to respond to all the things that were said about me. I'm not asking for an unblock here, just the ability to post a response on the admin noticeboard where allegations against me were made.

Decline reason:

You can leave a response below here, and if it is before 22:00 UTC (three hours from now) I will copy it across to the AN/I discussion. After that time, you had better do another unblock request with your message below, to make sure someone sees it. JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(ec) Could you author your response here? I or someone else can then copy it over to ANI. Do make sure to read WP:Guide to appealing blocks first though: Focus on the reason for your block, not on what you think others may have done wrong. Amalthea 19:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Amalthea. I can't do it in 3 hours. I got caught doing way too much of this at work and I have things going on tonight. Might be a day or more. PhanuelB (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful. Editing while at work, even if you're not caught, can still interfere with your work; and I speak from experience on that. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll keep this page watchlisted. Amalthea 20:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please post to Admin Noticeboard

PhanuelB's Response

The present block only contains allegations of "trolling, disruption, or harassment" with a link to Disruptive Editing so I will address only those allegations which as far as I can tell can be almost anything. Issues of WP:TLDR are justified by the large number of false allegations that must be addressed.

Background of Content Dispute:

The article involves the Nov-07 murder of British exchange student, Meredith Kercher (MK), in Italy. As NOT stated in the article the events are notable because of questions over whether a female American exchange student convicted of the crime, Amanda Knox (AK), received a fair trial. The trial has been the subject of intense international criticism, particularly in the United States, by those who believe AK and her co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito, did not receive a fair trial. The conviction of a third person, Rudy Guede, is not in dispute. The essence of the content disagreement is that the article does not properly weight the POV of a substantial majority of reliable sources who have criticized the trial in unprecedented language. These WP:RS include legal commentators on CNN and Larry King Live, a retired FBI agent, a Seattle area Judge, and two CBS documentaries about the case one of which as been nominated for an Emmy Award. A group of mostly European editors steadfastly refuses to allow the inclusion of this material beyond a brief mention. The failure to include such material raises issues of defamation and WP:BLP violations against AK in the article.

Allegation of "Refusal to get the point":

The allegation of "Refusal to get the point" violations is denied.
WP:DE states

"In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error."

In point of fact many editors have expressed the same concerns I have. The threshold of "rejection of the community" is not met.

By FootWarrior to Black Kite : This discussion started with a post where PhanuelB accurately pointed out that a statement in the article was false and provided evidence proving it was. Your objection was that he referred to Rudy Guede as a drug dealer and that this violated WP:BLP. You also deleted his comments from the talk page, instead of following the normal talk page process of asking for sources to back up the claim. PhanuelB responded with quotes from sources used elsewhere in this article that clearly meet the definition of WP:RS. If we have a RS backing up the claim, it doesn't violate the rules of WP:BLP. At this point, the threat you have made to block a fellow editor is not really justified under WP rules.

Allegations of WP:BLP, WP:SYN, WP:OR Violations:

Allegations of WP:BLP, WP:SYN, and WP:OR violations are denied in all respects. The essence of that dispute can be seen here and here. Everything is sourced perfectly. There is no synthesis or original research whatsoever. The exclusion of this material raises issues of WP:BLP against Amanda Knox. These two paragraphs are an extemely accurate representation of the substance of the allegations of BLP made against me on a daily basis.

Even one false allegation by an administrator is a serious matter.

Allegations of Trolling:

The allegation of trolling is denied absolutely and completely.
The WP:RS provided in Appendix1 below demonstrate that my contributions are "genuine dissent" -- at least.
The allegations of trolling are a violation of WP:AGF and show a double standard.
Participation in other non-Wikipedia formums is not prohibited by Wikipedia. My identity as a major participant in the debate has been fully disclosed.
From WP:TROLL :

"Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling."

Allegations of WP:SOAP

Allegations of soapboxing are denied. For reference see the collapsed section here(doesn't link perfectly but the same content is here).
The section was a good faith effort to present what I think needs to be in the article. It consolidates content that might go in various places in the article, not all in one section. It is impecably sourced despite allegations to the contrary.
This is the essence of what they say is soapboxing. It is not.
The section on Maria Cantwell takes up less space than in the present article
The section on television criticism takes up less space than the similar content in the present article.

Allegations of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, threats, and intimidation

The allegations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA violations are denied.
The allegations of threats and intimidation are denied.
The essence of MLauba's numerous allegations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF regards my claim (also made by others here) that the editors apply a litmus test to proposed reliable sources. If they disagree with the POV, they find a way to say the source is not reliable. The rejection of Steve Moore here is utterly predictable.
A claim that editors reject a proposed reliable source because they disagree with the proposed source's POV is not a personal attack under What is a Personal Attack, particularly when supported as well as it is below.
Careful examination of the WP:RS below and the reponses by various editors and administrators illustrates the point. The sources I present are opinions of Reliable sources. Any encyclopedic article about a controversial trial will cite opinions of those who say the trial was fair or that it wasn't.
The essence of the allegation of threats was that I have spoken about an intent to seek arbitration or mediation. Seeking arbitration or mediation under Wikipedia's rules is not a threat or intimidation under the meaning of WP:THREAT.

Allegations of WP:GREATWRONGS Violations

I do hold the view that the Trial of Amanda Knox is a great wrong, one of many in the world.
I did not come to Wikipedia to right a great wrong because my first post on the subject under PhanuelB here complemented a previous (pre-major modification) version of the article.
The sole objective here is to see a Wikipedia article consistent with Wikipedia's policy of representing what reliable sources say about the subject. The POV of the article now is the exact opposite of what the reliable sources in the appendix below say.
Disputes on this page cannot be corrected as they are now by blocking and threatening to block those with a specific POV.

Allegations of WP:BATTLE and WP:CIVIL Violations

Allegations of past WP:BATTLE and WP:CIVIL violations are admitted in part and denied in part
A double standard has been applied to the conduct of those on one side of the dispute
WP:BATTLE violations are mitigated by questionable conduct by other editors.
By MLauba : threat/intimidation based on false allegation.
By MLauba : Intimidation of an editor who has made a fully justified comment.
By Black Kite : Threat/Intimidation based on false allegations of BLP violations. Challenged by others here.
By MLauba : Intimidation of an editor has made a legitimate post here.
By Black Kite : Threat based on false BLP violations. Double standard on WP:CIVIL.
By Black Kite : Intimidation based on a legitimate post.

Final Statement

I am fully committed to playing by Wikipedia's rules.
I have every right to challenge each and every false allegation made against me. There have been many here.
The objective is to have a NPOV article fully consistent with Wikipedia policy. We are VERY far from that now.
I have raised fair questions that others reject sources as not reliable because they disagree with the POV of the source. It does not violate WP:AGF or WP:NPA to state this obvious truth.
I have raised fair questions about misconduct (mostly false BLP allegations) by administrators on the MoMK page.
I have raised fair questions about a double standard on WP:CIVIL

PhanuelB (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PhanuelB's Reliable Sources

Appendix 1 -- PhanuelB's Reliable Sources

The following are opinions which fall under Wikipedia's requirement to report "facts about opinions." They are presented here because they bear on my claim that reliable sources are being rejected based on the content of their POV, a central point of dispute in the argument against my block. Issues of WP:TLDR are reasonable in the following but must be balanced by the importance of the content.

(1) Paul Ciolino

Hired by CBS News to investigate the case. Traveled to Italy and appeared prominently in two CBS 48 Hours documentaries. Credentials available "here".. Central figure in the exoneration of Anthony Porter who had been on Illinois' death row[2]

"This is a lynching. This is a lynching that’s happening in modern day Europe right now and it’s happening to an American girl who has no business being charged with anything.” -- CBS 48 Hours, Apr-09

"They’re so desperate to make a case against this kid that they’ll do anything." -- CBS 48 Hours, Apr-09

"You don't have to be an American to be outraged by this. This is an injustice of biblical proportions." -- CBS News, Dec-09

Response By Black Kite : Making a claim that the court was biased or predetermined would of course be a WP:BLP violation - if not libel - as it would allege (probably criminal) misconduct against those involved. In no way could that be included, especially based on non-neutral sources such as those above.

(2) Douglas Preston

Author of the Monster of Florence. An authority on Italian police investigations. First hand experience with Giuliano Mignin when he was expelled from Italy. Chosen to comment on the case by CBS, NBC,Fox News and CNN. Appeared prominently in two CBS 48 Hours documentaries.

"This is a case based on lies, superstition, and crazy conspiracy theories... and that's it." -- CBS 48 Hours, Apr-09

"he [Mignini] interrogated me. He accused me of committing horrendous crimes including being an accessory to murder…. I’m a professional journalist; I have a very good memory; I know what happened in that interrogation.” -- CBS 48 Hours, Apr-09

“This is a very abusive prosecutor, he makes up theories, he's obsessed with satanic sects.”-- Anderson Cooper 360 with Anderson Cooper 5-Dec-09

"There's a lot of corruption in Italy. There's a lot of political pressure brought to bear and cases are fixed. And the Amanda Knox case was fixed and the reason was that the prosecutor and the chief of police announced prematurely that they had caught the murderer... that was her and her boyfriend. And then they analyzed the crime scene and found the DNA, bloody hand prints, tons of evidence against a completely unknown person. So instead of saying "oops we made a mistake" and go after this person, they tried to link Amanda and her boyfriend to this third person, Rudy Guede, who actually committed the murder alone by himself. He's a criminal; he's a well known drug dealer. He has a history of breaking and entering into houses and of threatening people with knives." 18-Dec-10 Fox News Insider with Megyn Kelly

Response by Black Kite : Of course the documentary is going to show the most sensationalist quotes it can; it wouldn't be doing its job otherwise. But to give an example using Preston's quote "this is a case based on lies, superstition, and crazy conspiracy theories" - well, nice quote. Any reliable sources showing evidence that he may be correct? No, thought not. (Double standard on WP:CIVIL)

(3) Timothy Egan

Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for the New York Times.

"The case against Knox has so many holes in it, and is so tied to the career of a powerful Italian prosecutor who is under indictment for professional misconduct, that any fair-minded jury would have thrown it out months ago."[3] New York Times 10-Jun-09

"Preposterous, made-up sexual motives were ascribed to her...What century is this? Didn’t Joan of Arc, the Inquisition and our own American Salem witch trials teach civilized nations a thing or two about contrived sexual hysteria with a devil twist?" [4] New York Times 2-Dec-09

(4) Judy Bachrach

Rome based journalist and Profesor of journalism at John Cabot University in Rome. Former Vanity Fair Magazine Editor. Author. Chosen by Larry King Live and CNN Headline News to provide commentary on the case.

"I have always felt that Amanda was going to go to a kangaroo court and unfortunately I've been proven correct." -- CNN The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer 4-Dec-09

"the prosecutor is famously incompetent" -- Larry King Live 5-Dec-09

Response by Bluewave : I get quite irate at the arrogance of people who don't appear to have troubled to examine the case in any depth but consider themselves better able to comment on the verdict than the judges, who spent almost a year of their lives studying thousands of pages of evidence, over a hundred witnesses, etc). For instance Judy Bachrach has also claimed that the Italian justice system is based on the "the inquisition" and that, in Italy, you are "guilty until proven innocent"

(5) John Q. Kelly

Legal commentator for Larry King Live in this case and others. Involved in OJ civil trial. Represents family of Natalie Holloway. Chosen by Larry King Live to provided legal commentary on the case.

"It's probably the most egregious, international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen. This is actually a public lynching based on rank speculation, and vindictiveness." Larry King Live 9-Oct-09

Response by Black Kite : This is an encyclopedia. We report facts, not opinions derived by our editors from other sources - that's a violation of WP:SYNTH, which is policy, and will be removed wherever it is seen. As for the quotes above; they don't belong in the article because they're from POV sources (Ciolino, Kelly).

(6) Peter Van Sant

Long time CBS News Correspondent. Traveled to Perugia to report on the case with CBS 48 Hours. Many journalistic awards including 4 Emmy Awards.

"Bill[O'Reilly] I'm telling you with all of my journalistic integrity this woman is totally innocent." -- Fox News The O'Reilly Factor 12-Dec-09

"She's an innocent woman and I would stake my reputation as a journalist on that and I have been in this business for a quarter century." CBS News 10-Dec-09 talking about the 48 Hours segement to be broadcast that evening.

"We have determined that Amanda Knox is being railroaded." -- CBS News 4-Apr-09

"they [the jury] were subject to this avalanche of negative tabloid reporting that much of which were complete lies." -- CBS News 10-Dec-09

Response by Bluewave : We are not citing these documentaries as reliable sources and are not endorsing the views expressed in them. We're really just saying that a list of documentaries has been made about the subject of this article.

Response by Jonathan : The CBS documentary you are referring to is a self-publish source; self-funded, self-produced, not subject to peer-review and therefore, a biased source. CBS is not presenting the source, CBS itself IS the source. that's why it is essentially a blogosphere opinion.

(7) Senator Maria Cantwell

US Senator for the State of Washington.

"The prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Knox was guilty." 6-Dec-09

Response by Jonathancjudd : Senator Cantwell and Judge Heavey are in the Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch of the US Government, respectively. Neither has any authority whatsoever to comment; nor any jurisdiction over a murder in a sovereign nation; nor do either represent the "US Government" position, they are essentially statements that are as non-binding as a campaign promises...I do not see a reason for any of the above making it into the article. This is almost entirely sourced from Blogs and should not be considered a WP:RS.

(8) Judge Michael Heavey

Long time Superior Court Judge from the Seattle area. Appeared on The TLC Documentary The Trials of Amanda Knox." Daughter knew Amanda Knox.

"The prosecutor’s office, police and prison employees have made illegal and false statements to the press. These false reports have wrongfully poisoned the well of public opinion against Amanda. A Perugian judge, Claudia Matteini, was caught up in this false speculation and has repeated and added to the false speculation in her opinions."[5] 12-Aug-08 as referenced in TLC Documentary.

"For those of us who believe in Amanda's innocence if she's found guilty which can happen with a deominzed defendant that'll be a terrible injustice."

Response by TMCk : The Trials of Amanda Knox is a puff piece with little to no quality information and hardly qualifies as a documentary.

(9) Steve Moore

Recently retired FBI agent with a distinguished 25 year career. Is not a member of the formal Friends of Amanda organization. Has appeared on ABC Good Morning America, CBS Morning Show, and NBC Today show providing commentary on the case.
Credentials have been verified by major news organizations.

"Two good kids who were in college were framed for a murder that they did not commit and will spend the rest of their young lives in prison. Amanda will never have kids. This is obscene what they are doing to them." -- Gayle King Radio Show 9-Sep-10

"One reason that they were falsely convicted was that every rule of good investigation was violated."

(10) Anna Momigliano

Milan based Italian-American journalist who writes for Foreign Policy Magazine

"U.S. cable shows declared the verdict a sham, shredding the evidence and the court's conduct. And now, the Knox case is turning into an international trial on the reliability of Italy's justice system." [6] Foreign Policy Magazine 10-Dec-09

Response by Black Kite : Attempting to insert your own synthesis about Guede into the article, and when an editor pointed out that you could not do that, and that only the verdict of the court should be stated, you replied "reliable sources state the findings of the court are a sham".

(11) Bernard Sheperd

President of Birmingham (England) Legal Society

"The flimsy evidence on which she was charged would have been insufficient to have ever reached a British court." [7] The Birmingham Post, 24-Dec-09

(12) Bob Graham

Correspondent for The Daily Telegraph. Participated in the production of the British documentary "The Trials of Amanda Knox" for The The Learning Channel.

"In the two years I have been investigating this murder and its distorted legal procedure for a documentary, I have learnt to question every action of the process, to doubt its findings and to have reservations about every claim. I have come to understand the guilty verdicts against Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were merely interim findings by a court that lacked the standards of objectivity to which we are accustomed, where evidence presented as fact was of dubious probative value. Nor am I, by any means, alone in my conclusions."[8] The Daily Telegraph 16-Dec-10

"The appeal will not just be an examination of Amanda Knox but of the Italian judicial system and its ability to produce a verdict which stands the test of scrutiny."[9] The Daily Telegraph 16-Dec-10

(12) S. Michael Scadron

Retired US Justice Department Attorney.

"Over the past few years, Perugia, Italy, has been the focus of an international scandal involving the demonization of an American exchange student convicted of murdering her housemate in a drug-fueled orgy. The sex-game scenario is one dreamed up by the prosecutor and embellished in the media, but unsupported by the evidence before the court." [10] The Christian Science Monitor 15-Sep-10

(13) Amy Jenkins

Correspondent for The Independent.

"no amount of political correctness is going to stop me from saying that this trumped-up charge exposes the Amanda Knox case for the witch hunt it is." [11] The Independent 5-Jun-10

(14) Tom Leonard

Correspondent for The Daily Telegraph.

"If there are any lawyers in the US who actually agree with the Knox verdict, the TV networks and major newspapers have so far failed to find them." [12] The Daily Telegraph 6-Dec-09

(15) George Fletcher

Professor of Law at Columbia Law School.

"I think this is a scandal of the first order." [13] The New York Times 6-Dec-09

(16) John E. Douglas

Long time FBI Agent. Career spanned 1970-1995.
Considered one of the top criminal profilers in the field.

"Amanda is innocent—I’m convinced of it...The Italian police completely contaminated the crime scene. Besides, behavior reflects personality, and there is nothing in Knox’s past behavior to indicate she is a murderer. In both cases—West Memphis and Knox—the police allowed theory rather than evidence to direct their investigations, and that is always a fatal error." [14] Maxim Magazine 20-Dec-10

(17) Geraldo Rivera

Long time correspondent for numerous US networks, including, ABC, NBC, and Fox.

"You folks know if you watch this program that I am extremely skeptical of this conviction of Amanda Knox. I think that there was a lot of nationalism thrown in there." Fox News Insider 15-Dec-10

(18) Frank Shiers

Radio Announcer from the Seattle area.
Host of Northwest Nights on KIRO-FM 97.3.

"It is a miscarriage of justice in my view because there is nothing that ties her to the murder. Nothing." KIRO Northwest Nights 20-May-10

(19) Anne Johnstone

Correspondent for the The Herald Scotland.

"The more one looks at this case, the shakier it appears. It has as many holes and loose ends as a sieve full of Italian spaghetti. It is Italian justice that should be in the dock, not the 23-year-old American."[15] The Herald Scotland 25-Nov-10

PhanuelB (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Copied to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher. Super Mario Man 22:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PhanuelB (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above copied to AN/I sub-page

I have copied the above to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher, the sub-page to which the AN/I discussion has been spun off. JohnCD (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see where it says "work in progress" ?PhanuelB (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't snip at an editor who moved your comment in good faith. To prevent further mistakes like this please place a note at the top of your response to indicate that it is not ready to be moved yet and replace it with something like: "Draft finished, please go ahead and copy paste it to the appropriate board" when done. I or someone else will then gladly do so.TMCk (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was just moved again by Footwarrior (but reverted) so I took the freedom to add a short note at the top of your draft as you don't seem to be online. Hope you don't mind.TMCk (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks PhanuelB (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.TMCk (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

Phanuel, the material you have drafted above seems to be mainly about why you think you are correct on content issues. However, the reason for your block is not that you were ever wrong on content issues (although, I'm sure you're aware, I think you were wrong). Your comments on ANI should really focus either on an explanation as to how your behaviour (as opposed to your opinions) was not disruptive, or else on explaining your commitment to modifying your behaviour.

Just my take, but your behaviour was considered disruptive primarily because you were soapboxing (disrupting the talkpage with opinions that were not directly related to discussions about content), you made personalised criticisms of other editors and you did not seem willing to take on board the general spirit of WP policy, most significantly relating to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

I think you need to explain how you intend to approach things differently in future if you wish to be unblocked. Trying to make the case that you have done nothing wrong and are the victim in all of this is unlikely to work, now that (by my count) eight different admins have reviewed action taken against you and declined to find in your favour. --FormerIP (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just another note

Just a note about your response (draft). For one thing it's getting quite long and you might run into wp:TLDR. Another thing that I see is that you barely address the points and accusations made against you at ANI. Your response would more likely fit an Arbcom case which this one isn't. As a suggestion to save you some time I'd recommend splitting your response in a "ready to be posted" one while keeping working on "part 2". I could copy-paste such to ANI with making clear that there is more to come like "PhanuelB's respond - part one (part two to come at a later point)". This would probably give you some replies to which you then could reply directly and the opportunity to adjust your further draft work as needed. Please let me know what you think and/or how I can be of help. I realize that it is difficult to respond in "one row" and a lot easier in a back and forth real time conversation.TMCk (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petition for Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PhanuelB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Based on the reasons outlined in my response on this page and copied to the administrator noticeboard. I petition that the block be lifted.

Decline reason:

Having reviewed the ANI discussion where your responses were posted, I cannot see that there has been a substantial change to the consensus that you should be blocked. Indeed, there has been no one who has come to the conclusion that you be unblocked solely in response to your recent posts. Jayron32 03:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Objection -- Please post to Admin Noticeboard

Excuse me but I have not been been given a fair hearing here.

The unblock request came back saying that no one has commented in your favor. That's not surprising, it was only four hours. Since this was removed from the Admin noticeboard no one is comming to comment. Any adminis who claim to be neutral should at least read my response and say where they think it is wrong.

I have every right to have neutral administrators look at this case AFTER HAVING LOOKED AT MY RESPONSE. That has never happened.
I claim that false allegations of BLP violations have been made. Despite numerous requests, no neutral administrator has ever looked at the substance of that claim. I have said bad things about Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini. All I'm doing is repeating what reliable sources say. Every bit of it is sourced dead nuts as defined above.
The fact is that if my claims of false allegations of BLP violations are supported, then everything changes here.
There is a claim that my response had no diffs. Actually it has over 30.

There is no fairness here.PhanuelB (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Apologies that this has been overlooked for more than three hours. Super Mario Man 01:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Pablo's BLP comment -- Please post to Admin Noticeboard

I request that a neutral administrator view this This is the substance of everything I've ever said about Rudy Guede. Nothing more than repeating what reliable sources say. If neutral administrators determine it's not sourced, or WP:OR or WP:SYN then fair enough. If there's no WP:BLP violation there then significant counterclaims I have made stand.PhanuelB (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Copied. pablo 11:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on the "Has Had" Controversey -- Please Copy to Admin Noticeboard

Black Kite talks here about a a ridiculous argument over changing "has" to "had". In point of fact this sentence has been the subject of much controversey in the past as criticized here by another user.

The following text from the article is referenced:

"A bartender had also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife and the owner of a nursery school in Milan has claimed that Guede trespassed on her premises."

This very sentence is at the epicenter of what's wrong with the article and it has been extensively debated in the past. The claim that this was an argument over a trivial point such as using "has" or "had" is a misrepresentation. PhanuelB (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat that I would like independent, neutral admins to review my response. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. There was a lot of activity before I was able to respond. As I review this admin noticeboard page, I have the same question as Tim Egan above, "what century is this?"

Are you sure you want that copying over, Phanuel? Of course, I'll be happy to do it or for someone else to do it. But it looks very off-topic for an unblock discussion, which might not work in your favour. --FormerIP (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FormerIP: The allegation is made at the top of the page so I think it's fair and on topic to counter it. Please copy it over.PhanuelB (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --FormerIP (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksPhanuelB (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edited several articles in your user space

FYI, I've removed categories from several draft articles you have in your user space. These aren't considered articles, so should not have active categories (see WP:USERNOCAT). As suggested, I've just added a colon before each category, so if you do move the drafts into article space you'll be able to quickly re-enable the categories. Ravensfire (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:PhanuelB/sandbox

User:PhanuelB/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:PhanuelB/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. pablo 11:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book burning plain and simple. This episode represents an almost complete breakdown of Wikipedia's system and has brought shame on the otherwise good name of Wikipedia. The sandbox page records in considerable ,impecably sourced, detail much of what is wrong with the article.

The current Meredith Kercher article is defamatory in nature and bears little resemblance to what reliable sources have said about the case. This has occurred because a handful of powerful administrators acting in bad faith have been given a license to block the accounts or threaten away those with points of view different than their own. The points of view of those blocked exactly mirror what a substantial majority of reliable sources say about the case. The trial is in fact one of the most controversial and heavily criticized judicial proceedings in modern European history. None of this is reflected in the article, not to mention in the introduction where Wikipedia policy clearly states it belongs. The Sandbox page in question is sourced dead nuts and anyone is free to say where it isn't.

Wikipedia has developed a reasonable set of regulations, but the enforcement of those rules in this case is a sham. Despite numerous formal requests, no neutral administrator has ever reviewed the substance of my claim of false allegations of WP:BLP violations by MLauba and Black Kite.

I think it is a mistake for Wikipedia to have sandbox content show up in google searches although I don't quite know the mechanics behind that.

The dozen or so editors who have been blocked or threatened away because of their points of view on the Meredith Kercher topic have been dealt with in bad faith. No neutral administrator has ever reviewed the substance of the detailed unblock request that I made. Only four hours after submitting that reply (a lot of work went into it), an administrator who did not examine the substance of the unblock request said that no one has come to your defense. What did he expect after four hours? Since then a majority of editors on the page in fact stated that my block should not have occurred.

The Meredith Kercher article constitutes a heinous WP:BLP violation against Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and their families. If anyone doubts that bad faith occurred they should consider that despite lenghty and contentious debate, NOT ONE WORD OF THAT ARTICLE WAS EVER CHANGED IN WAYS RECOMMENDED BY THE PRO-INNOCENCE EDITORS. All those blocked are well educated intelligent people who belong in the Wikipedia community. The only transgressions I or the others made were minor WP:BATTLE infractions that were in all likelihood justified by the brick wall of bad faith we faced. All blocks in this case should be lifted so that a neutral article can be achieved.

The sandbox page should not be deleted because it records in the footnotes much of the sourcing for the POV of the editors who have been banned from participating in the article.

PhanuelB (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything which you wish to post at the MfD? Specifically addressing the case put in favour of deletion?
The MoMK article does not need pro-innocence editors. Or pro-guilt editors. pablo 15:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to reach consensus when those you disagree with can't participate in the debate. As far as I can tell, I'm not able to edit that page. PhanuelB (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Is there anything you would like to post here, that I can copy there ... pablo 15:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and copy the part starting with "Book Burning" and ending with my signature. PhanuelB (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more if there was some policy-based reason for retaining this page, rather than your own convictions that you are in the right. I'm not going to post that for you. If you wish to comment on the MfD, I suggest you either post an unblock request or use the {{adminhelp}} template, someone else can review this. pablo 20:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am linking this section from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/sandbox, to allow discussion for editing of BLP issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:PhanuelB/The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

User:PhanuelB/The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:PhanuelB/The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. pablo 11:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you do with this one. PhanuelB (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If returning to Wikipedia

If you plan to return to Wikipedia, I think you will need to pledge not to call a suspect a "drugdealer" or "petty thief" but rather focus on their police arrests or bookings, rather than trying to extend characterizations about a person. It might seem like a minor issue, but I think that is what people here meant by "WP:BLP violations". That is the only issue I have found, and could be the basis for reinstating your edit-access. In a sense, a suspect would need to be convicted of multiple offenses to be labeled as such, although I have heard that after the initial trial +2 typical appeals in Italy, a conviction there is considered "definitive" that someone was "the murderer" in a case. Instead, if we focus on how people think about the U.S. system, then someone can be convicted of "intent to distribute" but the appeals might prolong the case for years, so there would be no definitive label of "drugdealer" except as a quoted accusation (from a typical American viewpoint of a person's ongoing legal status).

Anyway, as you likely know, the appeal trial for Knox/Sollecito is underway in Perugia, and we need people to write about it. As you know, Perugia also has court hearings on Saturdays. The American news mainly considers the case to be the Knox appeal (with little mention of Sollecito). The new judge assigned to the case seems to be "impartial" now, so some radical changes are occurring: after only 2 hearings, the judge ordered a re-analysis of the DNA evidence for the knife and metal bra clasp, or a re-examination of the prior DNA testing, plus the homeless Antonio C. is to be re-questioned about what days he saw what. So far, we had a request to update the article to cross-connect Knox, Sollecito & Guede (as to when/if they met each other), but no one has written anything about those connections. I have been extremely busy trying to fix major Wikipedia templates, but with Knox all over the U.S. newsreports, Wikipedia could benefit from people writing about the subject. Perhaps after Xmas? -Wikid77 (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the kind words. It doesn't look good for getting reinstated although I may go to arbitration which I believe is allowed. Could you do me a favor and copy my response to the block efforts to the entry page for user:phanuelB/sandbox.? Maybe put an "oppose" in front of it and sign my name to it. I'm looking for the part starting with "book burning" and ending with my signature, the part that pablo won't copy. Pretty easy to get consensus when you block everyone that doesn't agree with you. Thanks. PhanuelB (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have the opportunity to confront allegations of BLP violations by MLauba and Black Kite

I am currently blocked and unable to respond to false allegations of BLP violations on User:PhanuelB/sandbox. The page is up for deletion. Pablo has refused to post my response to that page. Allegations of BLP violations by me from MLauba and Black Kite have repeatedly been challenged and shown to be false. In three separate unblock requests available on my user page, three administrators explicitly refused to examine my claims of false BLP allegations(not disagree with them, but refused to even look.) The sandbox page is impeccably sourced and anyone is free to point out what they think is a BLP violation.

I also request that any admin reading this take a close look at my request to unblock on my user page. Wikipedia has a reasonable set of rules but their enforcement in the case of the Meredith Kercher article has been a sham.

Perhaps also you could point me in the direction of how to obtain arbitration against this block.

Thank you in advance.

--PhanuelB (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing various administrators of lying isn't going to help your case, either. It was explained repeatedly to you why your suggested edits were violations of BLP. Unfortunately your definition of "lying" appears to be "they wrote something that I don't agree with". I would try rephrasing this in a less confrontational manner. If not, you can appeal your block to the Arbitration Committee by emailing arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To User:PhanuelB: It is important not to characterize a person's behavior as "lies" but rather as a disagreement about the issues, and such text should be redacted by editing this page and removing them. Text seen as violating WP:Civil will be grounds for keeping a user blocked. Meanwhile, I am working to cross-link pages so these issues can be more easily addressed. I am sorry I have been too busy to analyze these issues earlier, but I think I can help. Meanwhile, prior comments should be edited to reflect disagreements. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have removed the allegations of lies PhanuelB (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When preparing to return: As the author of a posted comment, you can entirely remove unwanted words rather than merely using "~~strike-through~~" which is required of others changing your words. In the specifics of your block, the details say:

"13:17, 8 September 2010 John (talk | contribs) blocked PhanuelB (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing: Long term SPA, WP:Battle mentality, WP:NPA)"

Each of those issues will likely need to be addressed, such as you had previously pledged not to be confrontational (WP:Battle) when you disagreed with other editors. You might wish to re-read those policy pages, because as I see it, many of those rules are not "common-sense" ideas, but rather the way other people have forced a certain set of slanted rules on what people are allowed to say in discussions. Yes, we have extreme POV-pushing by people slanting policy texts into peculiar directions. I was stunned to learn someone decided user-space pages are NOT the place to keep disputed content for an article: huh(?), that is so illogical, it is utterly bizarre. Some people got the WP:MOS Manual to say: "Only one colon is allowed per sentence" - oh wait, I just used 2 colons in this sentence. So, again, we are back to you having to abide by large sets of counter-intuitive rules about working on articles. Also, you need to ask, in emails with arbcom-L@lists.wikimedia.org, what could be the results of arbitration: they might admit you would be allowed back in Wikipedia, but instantly topic-banned from editing Talk:MoMK for perhaps 3 months as a pre-condition to returning. You need to see if they typically decide in that manner for such cases. Again, there are many problems here, so it will be a struggle to return. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the {{adminhelp}} placed here at 23:12, 21 December 2010 has been answered, above, so I have cancelled it to stop it alerting others. Please use another adminhelp if you need to. Chzz ► 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please post to Sandbox delete page

Oppose -- My block should never have occurred and all appeal options have not been exhausted. The allegations of BLP violations by MLauba and Black Kite are false. I do say bad things about Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini. All assertions are fully sourced and echoed by virtually all reliable sources. Claims that Italian police released false information prior to trial are well established and stated by virtually all reliable sources. See quotes of Judge Heavey and Peter Van Sant in Appendix 1 of PhanuelB's Response on my User talk page. PhanuelB (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DONE. I posted (the above) to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/sandbox at 05:36, 23 December 2010. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: New section "#BLP issues in PhanuelB/sandbox" (below) allows for community updates to that sandbox page, if any BLP issues need to be reworded. Per policy WP:BLP, the page must be updated before deletion. -Wikid77 05:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have structured "#BLP issues in PhanuelB/sandbox" (below), as linked in the MfD debate about User:PhanuelB/sandbox, with bolded "PLEASE NOTE: Policy WP:BLP applies to living persons by name". Some editors might be thinking if they disagree with text, then that is a BLP vio, not so. -Wikid77 07:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues in PhanuelB/sandbox

22-Dec-2010: If there are any WP:BLP issues about the page User:PhanuelB/sandbox, then they should be clearly identified here, in accordance with policy WP:Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) which requires pages be fixed (since 2009) for specifically-identified BLP concerns, while "deletion is a last resort".

PLEASE NOTE: Policy WP:BLP applies to living persons by name; to address concerns about "some police" (or such), it must be proven they are not deceased now, so use another policy for that case.

See the list below for further discussion. -Wikid77 05:50 (revised 07:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

List of specific BLP issues

The following is a list of issues (by id like "C1"):

C1. An allegation that the police tried to influence public opinion about the accused, before the trial.
(no others so far).

Discussion about BLP issues above

C1: Text about "police" in general does not seem to be an issue for WP:BLP which applies to named living persons. Proof must be submitted that those police are not deceased now. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C1: Here are several links from reliable sources which document the claim that police tried to influence public opinion prior to trial. The link to Judge Heavey's words was given as note 24 in the sandbox page. A slightly different link is required now because of changes to the source page. Those curious about the case might also go to the Oct-08 area from the Perugia Shock Web Site and view the autopsy photos of the victim which were released by authorites in an effort to show that the large number of wounds on the victim were an indication of multiple attackers.

"Leaked Infomation became a major feature of the case" Narrator, Mar-10, British documentary aired on The Learning Channel "The Trials of Amanda Knox"

"The prosecutor’s office, police and prison employees have made illegal and false statements to the press. These false reports have wrongfully poisoned the well of public opinion against Amanda. A Perugian judge, Claudia Matteini, was caught up in this false speculation and has repeated and added to the false speculation in her opinions."[16] Seattle area Judge Michael Heavey in a letter to the Italian Judiciary, Jun-08

"they [the jury] were subject to this avalanche of negative tabloid reporting that much of which were complete lies." Peter Van Sant, CBS News Dec-09

"There were alot of leaks out there's no question about that...we were given a lot, a lot, a lot of information... there was a time in Perugia when they were handing out crime scene photos like business cards." -- Barbie Nadeau Mar-10 in "The Trials of Amanda Knox"

"Well I think it's no secret to the Italians themselves that their system of justice is slow... suspects can be held in jail for up to a year before they're charged. The result of that tends to be trial by media and that is one reason you get a lot of leaks from legal sources, prosecutors, defense lawyers." Richard Owen Mar-10 "The Trials of Amanda Knox"

"After she was arrested the police set up a trap for Amanda by telling her she had tested positive for HIV. This sort of psychological trickery is commonly used by investigators in Italy to illicit a confession. In this case, it led a terrified Amanda to make a grave error that would permanently taint her image. She listed all the men she had slept with recently, trying to decide who might have infected her. The prosecutors knew that the press would jump at these salactious details of Amanda's sex life and one of the detectives close to the case leaked the document to British tabloid reporter Nick Pisa." Barbie Latza Nadeau, "Angel Face", p27.

"They manage these things differently in Italy, where prosecutors regularly leak their theories to the newspapers, often in extraordinary detail. Reporters compete for the juiciest tit-bits. As a result, by the time the trial comes around, the public already know what they think about a case, and why. This makes miscarriages of justice horribly likely." Peter Popham, The Independent, 24-Nov-09

I have now fully proven that an alleged BLP incident where I talked of leaked information by police has been fully documented by citations consistent with Wikipedia policy. I reiterate that the allegations of BLP violations against me are false and irresponsible. Wikipedia has defined a reasonable set of regulations but their enforcement is a sham. How can there be no consequences for administrators who make false and irresponsible allegations? I specifically request that the following users take a detailed look at my claim of false allegations of BLP violations by Black Kite and MLauba. (1) JamesBWatson, (2) Farix, (3) Cunard. Thank you in advance.

PhanuelB (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid77... could you forward this to those individuals? Thanks. PhanuelB (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see much hope of progress. User:JamesBWatson (an admin) even actively campaigned as the final "Delete" in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/sandbox (despite my reminder that BLP issues on pages must be corrected before deletion) and decided use of the sandbox page for Arbcom decisions was of little value. As you might know, in 2010 some Arbcom decisions were based on facts about an article's subject, rather than simply assessing a user's behavior (as they likely realized, finally, that when published details about a subject are known, then it is easier to determine who is really POV-pushing to hide details). When Arbcom really knows a subject, then they can see who is censoring what. Yet, the admins here are even ignoring major policies (to "correct BLP concerns before deletion"), and they've decided there is no need to help simplify the arbitration workload. Imagine the consequences: "We can schedule that arbitration case for late 2011, after submitting forms to restore all the deleted pages in question". Someone even claimed that the sandbox was a preferred form of "the [entire] article" (OMG), as if the partial text you had written could even begin to unslant MoMK (the article intro hasn't even mentioned the 2009 convictions are being contested in an ongoing appeal trial!). Bottom line: this place appears to be a waste of time to get a truly balanced, NPOV-neutral article about Knox and Sollecito. Editors here even claimed that is all you want in Wikipedia, and they give the impression you will never be allowed that result. I wonder what policy advises them to "censor people quoting sources to balance an article". There are better websites out there to let people know what experts are really saying about the case. This is a waste of time here. The admins even hate each other. P.S. They now launched an MfD to delete my original draft article about Knox, on Christmas Eve! Don't even think about trying to re-balance the MoMK article towards accuracy, you would need to write about the case from scratch, as on another website, with a balanced viewpoint from the very beginning. This is just my opinion of "fair and balanced" - you decide! -Wikid77 (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid77, Winners never quit and quiters never win. The Wikipedia article remains the first result in any goolge search for "Amanda Knox" so it is important. I believe that there ARE those in Wikipedia with honesty and integrity although I am appalled at what I have seen so far. I have come to believe that the current MoMk article is the biggest scandal in Wikipedia today. If you would, please forward my request to those three editors. The claims I make of false allegations of BLP violations will bear out to anyone who takes an honest hard look at the evidence. Such false allegations by administrators are an extremely serious matter. PhanuelB (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish other editors to look at information on your talkpage, then email them through the link. Please do not ask other editors to proxy for you; you are currently blocked. If you wish to be unblocked you should follow the standard procedures. Note also that the BLP issues are completely irrelevant to why you are blocked; you only need to look at the block reason for that, and those are the issues you should address in any unblock request. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See below: #Contacting other editors by email. -Wikid77 15:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting other editors by email

This is a reminder that some Wikipedia usernames have been activated (by those users) to receive email "anonymously" through concealed email addresses. However, not everyone reads their email on a regular basis. The sender must also activate email by selecting the settings in Special:Preferences (or click page option "my preferences"). The page "Special:EmailUser/..." can be used to send email to those users. In general, the contents of such email are not disclosed by Wikipedia management; however, the recipients of email might choose to announce the contents of some private email on Wikipedia, so care must be taken to avoid disclosing confidential information. See privacy issues at project page: WP:EMAIL.

Some examples:

Special:EmailUser/JamesBWatson - create email to JamesBWatson (might not read daily)

Only some usernames have activated email access. Most admins allow email posts, but some do not read them on a daily basis. Email messages typically do not handle wikilinks, so articles should be linked by full URL in an email message. -Wikid77 15:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things - the User:Farix you linked above is actually User:TheFarix. Secondly, please don't abuse the email function (i.e. by spamming other editors, or sending them contentious material). Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 18:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting editors who have participated in a discussion about me and taken for granted false allegations made by Wikipedia administrators is legitimate and is not spam. Period. PhanuelB (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I was just ensuring that you didn't do anything that might get your email or talk page rights revoked. Merry Xmas. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to email request for help

A while ago I received an email from PhanuelB. The text of the email is as follows:

Hi James:
This is PhanuelB. The other day you participated in a discussion about deletion of my sandbox page. Maybe issues of the legitimacy of my current block were relevant to that discussion, maybe they weren't. Anyway:
You wrote, "there is a consensus that the material in question contains BLP policy violations."
I would like to request that you take a closer look and render an opinion as to whether there are in fact BLP violations in any of my Wikipedia contributions. I allege serious misconduct by two administrators, MLauba and Black Kite. Both have made false and irresponsible allegations against me which were instrumental in three separate blocks to my account.
The content of the sandbox page is a fair representation of content that they and others consider to be BLP violations against Rudy Guede, Giuliano Mignini, and the Italian police. All material is completely sourced per Wikipedia policy and is not a BLP violation. Material starting with "PhanuelB's response" on my User page is relevant. The Murder of Meredith Kercher article is in fact a BLP violation itself because it pretends that the intense international criticism of the trial simply does not exist.
I believe that Wikipedia has developed a reasonable set or regulations but their enforcement of those rules in the case of the Meredith Kercher article is a sham.
Please view the reliable sources I have cited on my User Page and consider how the article and it's introduction cannot discuss this content. Note also the quote by Tom Leonard of the Daily Telegraph who says, "If there are any lawyers in the US who actually agree with the Knox verdict, the TV networks and major newspapers have so far failed to find them."
It is reasonable for me to request that someone who has said that allegations against me are credible be prepared to state specifically where those allegations have merit. If they aren't of merit then you have an obligation to say so, at least IMHO.
I believe that the integrity of Wikipedia is very much at stake here.
Thank you for your consideration and have a good holiday.
PhanuelB

I have accepted the request to "take a closer look and render an opinion as to whether there are in fact BLP violations". The request referred to "BLP violations in any of [PhanuelB's] Wikipedia contributions", but I have restricted myself to looking at the page at issue. My earlier comment, as correctly stated by PhanuelB, referred only to the existence of a consensus that there were BLP violations, and made no judgement as to whether that consensus was justified. (I made the comment in question at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/sandbox.) In response to PhanuelB's request I have now looked into the issue to determine whether there were such violations. In doing so I have considered only whether there were violations of the policy WP:BLP, not any of the other issues which have been raised in connection with the deleted page, the behaviour of other editors, or any other issues, such as a dispute about the content of Murder of Meredith Kercher. I looked only at the deleted user page in question and some of its references. I did not look at other material, such as statements in the deletion discussion, so that I could make my own independent assessment as to whether there were BLP violations, without being influenced by anyone else's view as to what did and what did not constitute such a violation.

Checking only a very small proportion of the references given in the page I was easily able to find a statement made about people which went beyond what was stated in the sources cited to support that statement. Thus the user page said "In a series of television appearances about the Amanda Knox case, Preston ridiculed Mignini". There is nothing in the source cited that mentions "ridicule": that appears to be a reader's own interpretation of a transcript of an interview, and it therefore breaches Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons's "no original research" requirement. Whether the interpretation was reasonable or not is not the point at issue. The user page made a statement about a living person which went beyond what the source cited said.

The page was entirely constructed to promote the view that the investigation and trial were wrongly conducted, in a variety of ways, so that it violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons's requirement for a neutral point of view. No matter how thoroughly a page is sourced, if it selectively presents material in order to support only one side in a disputed issue concerning a living person then it is not neutral. It seems likely that the content was originally intended to be incorporated in an article with other content. However, the issue in the deletion discussion was whether the user page should be allowed to exist, not whether similar material should be allowed to be incorporated into another page. The user page, considered in its own right, gave an unmistakably non-neutral account.

I therefore conclude that there were quite unambiguously violations of the BLP policy. There may or may not be more violations: I was asked to make an independent assessment as to "whether there are in fact BLP violations in any of [PhanuelB's] Wikipedia contributions", and having looked far enough to give an unequivocal answer to that question I stopped.

After I had considered the issue and written my conclusions I looked further, and discovered a thread relating to this at ANI. It is possible that if I had already known of that discussion I might have declined to spend time and effort looking at the issue again. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of talk page while blocked

I see that you have used this talk page to keep a copy of a page which had been deleted following a deletion discussion. Since attempting to circumvent consensus in this way is an abuse of a user talk page I have revoked your talk page access. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you were indeffed?

It seems amazing that in you receiving this punishment unjustly, your earlier opinions about the involved editors and Admins seems to have been proven. It is amazing that contributors like you are indeffed while disruptive and uncivil editors with specific and vocal POVs are shielded from Admin action which would be made on virtually any other article.

I hope this unjust outcome is overturned.LedRush (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Diffs on Meredith Kercher Topic -- Work in Progress

This is a work in progress

By Jimbo Wales

(1) One thing I think is relevant is that sources have been systematically excluded based on what I can only term "original research" arguments.

(2) Is it true that people have been banned for completely neutral edits? Yes. Is it true that reliable sources have been systematically excluded? Yes. None of that is acceptable.

(3) But censoring the views of prominent journalists and newspapers because it doesn't fit an agenda, is the precise opposite of NPOV. CNN, CBS, New York Times. Pulitzer Prize winning journalists. Those are sources, and to pretend they don't exist is a mistake.

(4) I recommend reading this(it is long) and taking particular note of the sections "PhanuelB's Reliable Sources". Compare that to what appears in the article. I have drawn no firm conclusions, but there is enough here to warrant careful examination. Better Link Here

(5) The number of reliable sources that are easy to find, which have been systematically excluded on flimsy grounds, is compelling evidence. Someone took them out. I don't think it wrong to call it to attention.

(6) Again, the important thing is not just this one example. It's systematic. Timothy Egan is a Pulitzer Prize winner who has raised specific and detailed objections... What we don't hear is what his objections are. And what those objections are, are not conspiracy theory fodder.

By DreamGuy (Experienced Editor asked to comment following the Petition)

(7) The article should not take a side on that (and currently by the slant of the presentation it clearly does take a side), but the main reason this topic is even notable at all is because of the controversy, and reading the original lead and content would suggest there is no controversy and they are guilty as sin

PhanuelB (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One small correction -- DreamGuy wasn't brought in by Jimbo. He came to the page on his own after seeing it on Jimbo's talk page (just like I did).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He does say he was asked by somebody; see the above link. This is not a question without an answer. PhanuelB (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he was referring to a general statement on Jimbo's talk page (archive 73) (which I saw and responded in similar manner) or Jimbo's posting on the BLP Noticeboard and not someone asking him directly. When he placed the tag he left the edit summary "article is extremely biased - Jimbo himself says we ought to investigate this, so putting tag on article". I realize this is a small point.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliano Mignini Reliable Sources

Reliable Sources talk about Giuliano Mignini with special emphasis on how his actions in other cases relate to the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

(1) 5-Dec-09, Douglas Preston on Anderson Cooper 360 with Anderson Cooper

"Well, let me talk about this interrogation. The police first claim that they'd lost the videotape or the audiotape of the interrogation. And then they claim that they never made one to begin with, and then they claimed that they don't even have a transcript of this interrogation. The only thing I've seen is a two-page statement that she signed written in absolutely perfect Italian, which she was not in command of at the time. So I don't really put a lot of -- but let me tell you about my own experience with Mignini because when I was writing The Monster of Florence he called me in for an interrogation. I had irritated him with my theories. And he accused me of being an accessory to murder. He accused me of involvement in satanic rites and satanic sex. And he demanded that I confess to all these crimes that I'd committed. And if I didn't, that he would indict me for perjury. And when I didn't confess to these nonexistent crimes, he did in fact indict me for perjury and suggested that I leave Italy. And so this is a very abusive prosecutor. He makes up theories. He's obsessed with satanic sex. And let's not forget that his original theory of the crime was that this was a satanic killing. That Meredith Kercher was murdered in a satanic rite. That somehow Amanda Knox was a Satanist. I mean, these are crazy theories." [17]

(2) 5-Dec-09, Douglas Preston on Anderson Cooper 360 with Anderson Cooper

"But the conviction of her now really has nothing to do with the very weak evidence presented, almost nonexistent. It has everything to do with saving the career of a very powerful prosecutor who himself is under indictment. And what happened was that he announced to the world, prematurely, that he had found the killer, and then -- was Amanda Knox -- and, then, two weeks later, they found the real killer. And instead of being able to admit his mistake, he and his -- the police spent an entire year collecting evidence to try to prove that Amanda Knox was somehow connected with this actual killer.That's right. He's been convicted. His DNA is all over the place. His bloody fingerprints are everywhere. He did it. And he did it by himself. But the problem is that the prosecutor couldn't admit this, because his entire career is in the balance in another case. He's under indictment for abuse of office. And if he made a catastrophic mistake like this, his career is over. So, he had to prove or show that Amanda Knox was somehow connected with this murder. That's the motive here. " [18]

(3) 10-Jun-09, Timothy Egan in the New York Times

"Fast forward to the Amanda Knox interrogations. She’s 20, hardly a world sophisticate, who spoke only passable Italian at the time. Mignini used the same methods – a pattern now coming to light in the misconduct case against him, in which he is accused by a Florentine judge of intimidation and wiretapping journalists and other perceived enemies. He has denied any misconduct. When Preston looked at the case against Amanda Knox, he saw a rogue prosecutor and a miscarriage of justice. “There was no evidence,” he said. “I realized it was all bogus. Mignini believes that Satan walks the land and anyone who is against him must be working for the other side.”" [19]

(4) 20-Dec-10, Douglas Preston on Fox News with Megyn Kelly

"There's a lot of corruption in Italy. There's a lot of political pressure brought to bear and cases are fixed. And the Amanda Knox case was fixed and the reason was that the prosecutor and the chief of police announced prematurely that they had caught the murderer... that was her and her boyfriend. And then they analyzed the crime scene and found the DNA, bloody hand prints, tons of evidence against a completely unknown person. So instead of saying "oops we made a mistake" and go after this person, they tried to link Amanda and her boyfriend to this third person, Rudy Guede, who actually committed the murder alone by himself. He's a criminal; he's a well- known drug dealer in Perugia. He has a history of breaking and entering into houses and of threatening people with knives – and also the victim was sexually molested. So all of this points to a single perpetrator but the prosecutor to save his career had to connect Amanda Knox and her boyfriend with the murder so that his initial pronouncement which was published in newspapers around the world would not be shown to be wrong." [20]

(5) Apr-10, Dan Abrams, Chief Legal Analyst for NBC on NBC Today Show

"Some will say does it matter that this prosecutor is currently having legal problems. Well the answer is that as a legal matter it shouldn’t, as a practical it might. Meaning this is a case that is being viewed by the world. The Italian justice system is on trial effectively in this case and is being scrutinized by the world and I think as a result this own prosecutor’s legal problems can’t be ignored by the Italian public at large and by the jury and judge." [21]

(5) 10-Jun-11, Judge Michael Heavey in an open letter to President Barack Obama and all members of congress.

"I respectively submit that your [President Obama] involvement and investigation will make it clear to you that U.S. citizen Amanda Knox has been openly and egregiously abused by a predatory prosecutor…In 2007 when Meredith Kercher was murdered, Mr. Mignini was under investigation for abuse of office for his actions in those investigations. In January of 2008, Public Minister Luca Turco formally charged Mr. Mignini with eight criminal counts of abusing his office. In open court, Turco stated that Mignini “had fallen prey to a sort of delirium.” In January of 2010, a month and a half after the Knox conviction, Mr. Mignini was convicted of four counts and sentenced to sixteen months in prison, suspended, pending appeal…During the preliminary hearing in October of 2008, Mr. Mignini stated, “the crime was a sexual and sacrificial ritual in accordance with the rites of Halloween.” This groundless conjecture metaphorically calls Amanda Knox a witch. These and other statements should have shouted to consular officials that Amanda was a defendant in what had become a witch trial, being prosecuted by a delusional prosecutor.”" [22]

(6) 19-Apr-11, Joel Simon, Executive Director of the Committee to Protect Journalists

"CPJ is particularly troubled by the manifest intolerance to criticism displayed by Perugia Public Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, who has filed or threatened to file criminal lawsuits against individual reporters, writers, and press outlets, both in Italy and the United States, in connection with the Kercher murder investigation as well as the investigation into the Monster of Florence serial killings." [23], [24]

PhanuelB (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Reliable Sources about the Wikipedia Murder of Meredith Kercher Article

This section deals with WP:RS who have commented on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article.

Sources to verify Preston's assertion

Preston has stated, "The police first claim that they'd lost the videotape or the audiotape of the interrogation. And then they claim that they never made one to begin with, and then they claimed that they don't even have a transcript of this interrogation." Are there news sources to validate his assertion? Where did he get this info?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preston was chosen as a WP:RS by CNN to comment on the case. As author of the Monster of Florence he has written a book with Mignini as a central figure so in a number of ways he is speaking as both a reliable primary and secondary source. Having collaborated on the book with Italian crime journalist Mario Spezi he can be presumed to have access to significant information within Italy. I don't know of any reliable source that is challenging his assertions either. PhanuelB (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page

Phanuel, may I respectfully ask that you review the content of the above section titled #Giuliano Mignini Reliable Sources? I believe that the material that you are adding could be considered inappropriate for a user talk page, for a number of reasons. Regardless of your contention that the sources are reliable, using this page as a repository for long, negative quotations would seem to violate the Wikipedia userspace content guidelines, part of which states that "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed". Furthermore, since the material relates to a particular individual, there should also be consideration of the Biographies of Living Persons policy, which is explicit on the subject of criticism of individuals and applies as much to user talk pages as it does to articles. Lastly, I am concerned that the presentation of multiple lengthy extracts, copied and pasted from external sources, is a potential copyright violation with regard to the use of quotations on Wikipedia pages. Given the problems that I have pointed out, would you be willing to blank the section or otherwise remove the content from this page, keeping a copy of it off-Wiki if you wish? Super Mario Man 13:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this material violates any Wikipedia policy. It is "encyclopedia related" and "related to preparation for dispute resolution" as specifically allowed under the regulation you cite. This began with false allegations made against me by JamesBWatson which I have been unable to respond to for nearly six months. I have a right to defend myself against false statements about me on my user page.

I do not believe there are copyright issues here. These are responses to single questions asked by a news correspondent during a television appearance.

I do not think your concern about WP:BLP is well placed. The Murder of Meredith Kercher article was in March and remains today a very serious WP:BLP violation. John Seigenthaler was never harmed by Wikipedia; Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and their families have been harmed by Wikipedia's failure to abide by its well conceived WP:BLP policies. There is nothing wrong with compiling a list of reliable sources who have commented on a public figure, particularly when the fair treatment of other living persons requires it.

Dispute resolution would be fine if you want. PhanuelB (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/10/48hours/main4005725_page5.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[2] ttp://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/170053/Killer-of-Meredith-Kercher-s-crimes-were-ignored

[3] ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/6732245/Amanda-Knox-trial-Rudy-Guede-profile.html

[4] ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1081457/Rudy-Guede-Portrait-Merediths-murderer-begins-30-year-sentence.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 865: / Line 865: @@
 Phanuel, may I respectfully ask that you review the content of the above section titled [[#Giuliano Mignini Reliable Sources]]? I believe that the material that you are adding could be considered inappropriate for a user talk page, for a number of reasons. Regardless of your contention that the sources are reliable, using this page as a repository for long, negative quotations would seem to violate the Wikipedia [[WP:UP#POLEMIC|userspace content guidelines]], part of which states that "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. '''Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc.''', should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed". Furthermore, since the material relates to a particular individual, there should also be consideration of the [[WP:BLP|Biographies of Living Persons]] policy, which is explicit on the subject of criticism of individuals and [[WP:BLPTALK|applies as much to user talk pages as it does to articles]]. Lastly, I am concerned that the presentation of multiple lengthy extracts, copied and pasted from external sources, is a potential [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright violation]] with regard to the [[Wikipedia: Quotations#Copyrighted material and fair use|use of quotations on Wikipedia pages]]. Given the problems that I have pointed out, would you be willing to blank the section or otherwise remove the content from this page, keeping a copy of it off-Wiki if you wish? '''[[User:SuperMarioMan|<font color="#CE2029">Super</font>]][[User talk:SuperMarioMan|<font color="#FF3F00">Mario</font>]][[Special:Contributions/SuperMarioMan|<font color="#FF8C00">Man</font>]]''' 13:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
+:I do not believe that this material violates any Wikipedia policy. It is "encyclopedia related" and "related to preparation for dispute resolution" as specifically allowed under the regulation you cite. This began with false allegations made against me by [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] which I have been unable to respond to for nearly six months.  I have a right to defend myself against false statements about me on my user page.
+:I do not believe there are copyright issues here.  These are responses to single questions asked by a news correspondent during a television appearance.
+:I do not think your concern about [[WP:BLP]] is well placed.  The [[Murder of Meredith Kercher]] article was in March and remains today a very serious [[WP:BLP]] violation.  [[John Seigenthaler]] was never harmed by Wikipedia; Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and their families have been harmed by Wikipedia's failure to abide by its well conceived [[WP:BLP]] policies.  There is nothing wrong with compiling a list of reliable sources who have commented on a public figure, particularly when the fair treatment of other living persons requires it.
+:Dispute resolution would be fine if you want. [[User:PhanuelB|PhanuelB]] ([[User talk:PhanuelB#top|talk]]) 17:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)