Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

user:Draganparis intentional and habitual misconduct

Draganparis (talk · contribs)

For weeks now, user Draganparis makes constant accusations and slanders certain users he deems as his archenemies in Wikipedia. In the course of a few months he was banned once for disruptive editing and once for sockpuppetry and has 3 confirmed socks. Two of them were discovered after my complaint and were confirmed here [1]. Since then, he has been roaming Macedonia related pages intentionally and blatantly slandering my name and this of other editors. He also initiated a sockpuppetry case against user Athenian, accusing me and two other editors of being his puppets, which produced unconfirmed results only. It proved that 3 of us operate from northern Greece, but that was all [2]. Since then, user Draganparis is constantly making improper and slandering comments in a personal battle against me and other users making customized "technical notes", posting them around and threatening people (even admins!!!!) not to remove them!!!

Evidence:
[3],
[4]
[5],
[6]
Here he is warning another user to not remove his "technical note"...[7]
Here he is warning an admin to not remove his "technical note"...[8]
Here I warn him to stop propagating slanders... [9]
He of course goes on... [10]
..and on.. [11]
..and on.. [12]

...

Anybody who will look into this matter will easily see that throughout this time, I tried to refrain from discussion with user Draganparis and most if not all of his comments were made in irrelevant instances and with me (and the other users he mentions) absent from the discussion. This clearly shows his intention to slander. It will be very interesting for any admin to occupy himself with this case to look into the edits of all concerned editors, mine, Draganparis' as well as any other's Draganparis constantly abuses. Since day 1, he has not made A SINGLE constructive edit in any article. He is a man of single purpose and is only active in discussions to disrupt and propagate his personal beliefs. I could go on and on about how he has behaved to other editors and admins, but in this complaint, I only refer to his conduct towards me in the last weeks.

Please, look into this matter and rule out something... GK (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a heap of irritating disruption in that long message of his, and I agree it does not belong on a talk page. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has removed it three times now - and since April 9 it has not come back. It's a bit late to leave him warnings about that unless he does it again. I have notified the editor for you. --SGGH ^ping! 14:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, my informing the community that we "might" have kind of collaborative editing is not accusatory. I think it is now well known, and if there is no collaboration, there is certainly a need to reduce edits of bare support of the opinions of the other editors from the "group" and STOP permanently insulting the opposing editors. Producing evidence (this is a history page!) is needed instead. I would appreciate if the Administrator would inform the mentioned "group" about the rules of decency on Wikipedia.Draganparis (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So, here you have it... He "informs" the community that some users "might" have some kind of collaborative editing... And then he again talks about the mentioned "group" which "might" exist and "might" collaborate and "might" be socks as he propagates... I think that user Draganparis' words here clearly show the extent of his misconduct... He propagates his suspicions, no matter where or why and blatantly attacks me and other users. He does not seem to understand that accusing somebody once, during a heated discussion, of something that according to his opinion "might" be true is not the same thing as continuously and methodically propagate such accusations. GK (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at what Draganparis considers a "discovery":

ATTENTION: The user GK1973 changed his name to GK. (May be to hide his being GK1973 and a "member" of the group that I call "Greek neighbors".)Draganparis (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone please link "conspiracy theorist" and "there is no cabal" stuff...

Seriously though, it's not only that he accused some editors of being socks, he got his investigation which didn't prove his accusation, but then he goes on to keep insisting that the investigation was wrong and he is still right and he no less than SPAMS the same thing over and over and OVER again. This is not proper behaviour and I wonder why admins have not blocked him again. It's not like he was a perfect example so far, he's been blocked for trolling and sock-puppeting already! And he disputes those investigations too and claims we blocked him and not uninvolved admins. He slanders YOU too! Instead of focusing on borderline cases of unproven incivility (my pet peeve), how about you do something about a clear cut case such as this? Simanos (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is rather surprising that this is still going for months. Inaction can cause trivialities to grow into real problems. Then again, admin involvement is a thankless task, when there is a real or perceived ethnic dispute (here it is only perceived as such by one user).

• For instance, I have no dispute with Draganparis, and not the slightest knowledge of his edits concerning Cyril and Methodius (I had only filed his first confirmed SPI case in January [13] ; then, nothing more, zero interaction, despite being called a nazi on that case page [14] etc). His latest posts only came to my attention now, because I was inactive since March, being busy IRL, and therefore not willing to address any kind of provocations, or sloppy actions (see below). Nevertheless, it is disappointing that I come to discover my username continuously and repeatedly included, with no justification whatsoever, in a series of "warnings" or "notices" posted all over the place (from what I gather, in irrelevant pages) about belonging to some conspiracy or group or whatever entity of users (no matter who those users are). In fact, such posts in article talk pages, and unconcerned third user pages, would be disruptive, under any circumstances, even if they had been proved to be true. Even more so, when there is no basis for them, as is the case here.

• Moreover, let me add, that the SPI case mentioned [15] (against Athenean, myself et al.) was opened and closed in a much too hasty, even sloppy way. And to make it clearer: 1. there was no behavioral evidence justifying a checkuser privacy intrusion; 2. the conclusion as presented is unhelpful (and probably the investigation was too shallow; for example, I had been travelling a lot those days/weeks that there could be no coincidence of my location with any other users, except maybe at one given time... not to mention that I started my itinerary in the opposite part of the world). In this situation, I can guess the best intentions of those that acted, after hearing "scary" words like Macedonia, but the point of an SPI is not to get rid of it quickly, but rather to resolve it in a way that helps move on with encyclopedic work. Anyway, I hope concerned users don't take offence on this comment of mine; I refrained from commenting on this till now, but I see it as one of the sources of the current problem, and a clarification or intervention might be needed to finally move on... Antipastor (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but a checkuser's role in an SPI investigation is to evaluate the technical evidence (note, I was the checkuser in question). The technical evidence supported no conclusions. Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. So, according to you, is user Draganparis parade through Wikipedia spamming warnings regarding these IPs justified? GK (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, further revealing discussion on this issue has been conducted in DP's personal discussion page here [16].

I am prepared to let go, as long as user Draganparis publicly admits to his misconduct and clearly, without any excuses and peculiar wording swears he will not do it again. As for the rest of the users who have been victims of DP's misconduct, I leave it to them to decide how to act. GK (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is overflowing everywhere, including on user talk pages (and my talk page unfortunately). Nothing productive is happening either there, here, or on the user talks. Can we propose archiving them all and imposing some sort of talk-page interaction ban? SGGH ^ping! 14:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That is just silly, I'm sorry to say. The problem is not Dragan's talk page (which is an attack page and should be deleted), but that he spills his sladners in every article talk page he visits. Over and over and over again. And you are right that nothing productive comes of it. Because you and other admins do not get involved in this clear case of personal attack violation by DP. Why is that? Simanos (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you please read our last edits on my talk page and Cyril and Methodius page, and see my permanent and recent efforts to calm the spirits – and insatiable desire to have me out of the discussion of exactly 4-6 very well defined users, with very well defined concept. Without examining these edits you can not, I am afraid, have realistic impression. Look at that vocabulary please, even here. In addition, the users Simanos and GK (GK1973) are insulting me not in any oblique way but concretely using straight forward insulting words (layer, paranoid, etc. even on YOUR talk page!?). How about warning them to avoid hard words at least?Draganparis (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your efforts to calm the spirits are always accompanied by your inflamatory baseless accusations and slander. Even in this message here you again mention (read: spam) the same nonsense about 4-6 "very well defined users" and you other conspiracy theory cabal stuff. Our desire is not to have you out of the discussion. Our desire is to have you stop slandering people and spamming and trolling. Every time you do not get your way you start complaining again about the world being out to get you. Or at least the secret evil cabal of Greeks. We are not insulting you by showing evidence that you are a sock-puppeter (confirmed twice), troll (blocked once for disruptive editing), or by complaining about your obvious slander attemp (and spam) that you haven't been banned for yet. Nor when we point out the conspiracy theory nature of your complains and spam. We're merely calling a spade a spade. Or would you prefer it if we shut up? You've tried to do that to others with threatening messages, even to admins! Need I remind you what you posted on Future Perfect's talk page? Simanos (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Message to admins: Can you please pay some attention to this issue of constant slander? It's not related to Macedonia or other controversial articles you may not want to get involved in. It's a simple clear cut case. Don't settle into inaction please because you fear you will get bogged down into a frustrating situation. Simanos (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I must thank to the volunteer administrators who are spending their time to solve the situation for which I certainly have important responsibility. However, the presumed “culprits” know my identity and I have been openly defamed. This gives a new, serious dimension to the problem, I am afraid. The protection of anonymity has been removed and we have now the case of direct responsibility reaching beyond Wikipedia frame of a priory assumed anonymity protective belt. If a serious and consequent effort would be made to prevent open insults of a kind that I have been exposed, and if Wikipedia would operate by the standards that are valid for a civilized community, I will greatly appreciate. Difference must be made between on one hand sarcasm, conditional accusation, metaphoric expressions and allusions, which could be permitted, and on the other hand use of straight insulting and indecent words, which must be forbiden and use sanctioned. I will now withdraw from the discussion and observe the developments for couple of months, thereby permitting that Wikipedia introduces appropriate retributive measures, finds the means to assure civilized communication, and that the aggressive spirits lose their impetus. Thank you very much for making efforts to solve this unpleasant situation. To help calm the situation and from formal reason I would now appreciate if Wikipedia and administrators would communicate with me only over my e-mail. Thank you very much indeed.Draganparis (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As Simanos also said, this is NOT some Macedonia-related issue. This is an issue of open and admitted slander. DP has shown that he chose to spam slanders regarding my person and a number of other accounts. I have offered a very logical way out (a plain and without innuendos, puns, irony, sarcasm, humor etc apology here)and apparently he has dismissed it. All this situation has absolutely no ethnical or racial aspects, it is direct misconduct. So, please, take a look at the evidence and administer this complaint. Either I am wrong and parading self made warnings about users who "might be collaboratng and who might be socks of each other" all around Wikipedia is a good intended practise we all should use, since the use of "may" is not definite and thus such a sentence cannot be used as an accusation or I am right and user DP should face the consequences administered (warnings, bans, a at on the back, whatever...) GK (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I also support that the administrators block me for some time. A WP:ANI procedure has been initiated to examine whether I should be punished for „disruptive editing, trolling and insulting” some editors like GK (GK1973), Simanos and Anothroskon (this is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Under: user:Draganparis intentional and habitual misconduct; see also my talk page). It was caused by the difference in opinion about the interpretation of history in principle, editing method and validation of evidence (sources), all centered around various Ancient Macedonia pages which were, in my opinion, systematically changed to give an integral part of continuous “Greek” history by either removing the word “Macedonia” or other historically used words, and by introducing, in my opinion inappropriately, the word “Greek”.

In response to the above accusations, I removed from my talk page a report of the administrator investigation about sockpuppeting of the mentioned editors, (the verdict was in fact that the sockpuppeting could not be explicitly demonstrated (this is at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Athenean/Archive …).

The central point has been my insistence on proper HISTORY writing, and not a specific point. The example of my neutral efforts to establish proper history writing was my opposing the replacement of the terms like “Macedonia” (ancient), Slav, Byzantine, or other corresponding terms, by the term “Greek” on the ancient history pages. More precisely, as disturbing was found to be my insistence on the use of historical method; and then disturbing was taken to be my protesting against the open and concrete insults by the mentioned editors (in spite of my NOT BEING ANONYMOUS, consequences of which may have legal aspects). These protests were interpreted as insults against them (mentioned editors). I maintained that my “insults” consisted exclusively not in the use of the explicit insulting words, but, if at all, of use of obliquely insulting “style”: may be some form of “disruptive editing”, insistence on some from them subjectively taken as “irrelevant details”. For example my qualification of their sources as invalid - the use of propaganda pages as sources, etc. was not accepted and was characterized as disruptive.

Indeed, I expressed a conviction that “difference must be made between on one hand sarcasm, conditional accusation, metaphoric expressions and allusions, which could be permitted, and on the other hand the use of straight insulting and indecent words, which must be forbidden and eventual use should be sanctioned". Nevertheless, I decided, for the sake of termination of the “editors war” on these pages and constructive editing, not to further object on the pages of Wikipedia (but elsewhere I will) for their calling me “layer”, “paranoid”, various mockery and other insults.

I will temporarily restrain from disputes about history and will not oppose their replacement of the terms like “Macedonia” (ancient), Slav, Byzantine, or other corresponding terms, by the term “Greek” on the ancient history pages. I hope that this will help promote yet the Objective history pages on Wikipedia. Therefore I support the intention to block me for some time. This will further prove my point. Draganparis (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you for once stop talking about why you think the world is on you and answer for what you did? I offered you an easy way out if you just apologized here and showed any sign that you understood why what you did was wrong. Instead, you keep acting as some kind of protector of historical truth, some kind of martyr who is being persecuted for his ideas and effort to bring order into chaos... Don't you understand that these manifests do not make anyone more sympathetic but that they are direct proof of how you constantly avoid the real problems and try to divert attention? As for your "NOT BEING ANONYMOUS", first, it was your own personal choice and secondly, no one here takes even that for granted. We haven't checked you out, we don't care if you are Mr. Pavlov, Mr. Dragan, Mr. McDonald or anything else. You may as easily have presented a false identity and even then we would have no problem. As for your insults, I again state that this is not why I initiated this ANI case. This case (again, as I initiated it) has to do with your methodically propagating slander regarding my person and other users in a number of Wikipedia pages. As for your excuses... I write :

:::And the paranoia continues... So [17] here is not slander? ATTENTION: The user GK1973 changed his name to GK. (May be to hide his being GK1973 and a "member" of the group that I call "Greek neighbors".)Draganparis (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC) or do you think that using the word "maybe" as in "maybe he is a convicted rapist hiding from justice" makes it a well justified, unbiased and friendly remark? I chose to write off the number from my nick for my own reasons and you know that it still is visible in the history of any article I edited since. I did not form new accounts nor would it be your job to even criticize that. In a single line you accuse me of being a member of some cabala, of wanting to hide from someone (why would I, anybody would wonder...) etc. And this "ATTENTION"!!?? What is this? Some kind of notification to editors to protect themselves? I can bring forward countless instances of personal attacks, blunt name-calling and insults towards me and other users but this is not what I am accusing you of here. The accusation is slander and, as it seems, you happily admit to it. And of course, there is much more proof of your misconduct presented in the ANI page. GK (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

and you reply [18] :

Your free associations are NOT what I said. I mean what I say. When I say “might” means “may be and may be not”. When I say my be, means “there is possibility that”. Where is slander there? Why should I mean by this that “maybe he is a convicted rapist hiding from justice”???? I do not say that you are “a member of some cabala”. I say you might be exchanging ideas with some your neighbors, or already have the same ideas and then support each other without knowing each other. This is also kind of unfair collaborative editing.

and the rest is taunts for me to reveal my identity, complaints about how people use bibliography and other irrelevant staff... As for this endless whining about being fed up with unorganized Wikipedia and how you will restrain from disputes or editing or anything... this also is tiresome after some time [19], [20], [21]. GK (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To SGGH : Could you please decide whether you think that DP's propagation of what I call "slander" and he "a warning to the community" is acceptable policy in Wikipedia? You seem to be well intended, trying to heal the situation by making us stop interacting with each other, but this is not possible as long as we are even partly operating in the same articles. We need you and any other involved admins to adjudicate the dispute. As you have seen, I have already offered an easy way out, provided DP understood that what he did was wrong and he denied it. This, for me, either means that DP does not understand nor accepts that he did wrong or that he does understand it but he needs someone to remind him that Wikipedia is not a jungle. On the other hand, you might propose that I am wrong and his warnings are fully legitimate (as you seemed to imply in his talkpage). I am ready to accept such a decision too. So, again, please.., state your opinion as an admin regarding this case. GK (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it has escalated onto every talk page, both user and article, and that is quite enough. It doesn't appear to be stopping no matter what the original content dispute was. Each party seems to be as guilty as the other at the moment. Stopping all interaction seems to me to be a step towards deducing the disruption to the project created by this whole thing, it may involve content sanctions and requests for comment in the future. SGGH ping! 10:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(to leave the next section for the admins)

When you say it has escalated to every talk page, what do you mean? What has escalated? This was the root of the issue, that user DP methodically spammed accusations of canvassing and sockpupppetry in many pages. You say "it doesn't seem to be stopping no matter what the original dispute was". First, it cannot stop until the admins give a ruling, although things are calmer now than a week ago. Secondly, there was no relevant "original dispute". The case is about DP's methodical propagation of slander and nothing more unless you want to bring forward more "charges". Do you mean that my complaint is invalid and that what DP has done does not breach Wikipedia rules? How can all seem as guilty at the moment? For weeks, no one interacted with DP and we just tried to be patient with his actions, warning him that we will file complaints. He did not stop. Now, he has stopped, but denies to accept that what he did was wrong, which was my only demand. Do you think that it was unreasonable? It starts to look so, since you are reluctant to directly judge the said action. I know that you had some fallout with Simanos, but it was me that filed the complaint and you did not have any problem with me. You are talking about content sanctions. What do they have to do with anything? This is not about any disruption in any article (DP has been banned for disruption too in the past), actually DP has stopped creating serious disruptive problems since that ban. As I see it, DP has understood that his "warning the community" was disguised slander. He even removed some of those accusations from his personal page, which makes it clear that my complaint was not in vain. What is missing now is a simple statement of the admins on whether actions like that are justified or not and some kind of sanction, whether it be a ban or just admonishment. I think that you are exaggerating with how this case has "disrupted the project". Even the comments made here are nothing in comparison with what is going on in the rest of the cases here. So, please, give a ruling regarding the specific case and then, should you want to make another case regarding any other issues you would like to bring forward. GK (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How can you say each party seems to be as guilty as the other? Dragan is the only one who keeps on posting lies and slander in every post of his about the investigation that did not prove we were sock puppets or whatever. He is the one that has been blocked for disruptive behaviour and sock-puppetry before you know. Enjoy his latest threats in your talk page about legal action, after having been warned not to make threats like that, to admins no less: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASGGH&action=historysubmit&diff=359245462&oldid=358840889 Simanos (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

More threats about "taking legal action and causing a scandal concerning Wikipedia..." in another admin's talk page... [22] GK (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Implementing possible solution

Unfortunately this thread hasn't received too much attention from other admins, though I know the user(s) above have in the past. Would another admin weigh in here on the proposal of some sort of talk page/interaction ban between the three, or some other less heavy-handed solution? The growing disruption on article and user talks between the three groups is beginning to tread on WP:BATTLE. SGGH ^ping! 23:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I support an interaction ban, at the very least DP is not allowed to make these sockpuppet accusations any further. Canvassing in multiple locations by leaving "notices" and then warning people who remove them, that is completely unacceptable. I'd say that one more such accusation, or attempt to reapply such "notices" or warning people against removing them, would be grounds for a block (not sure how long a duration is appropriate). -- Atama頭 18:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(I moved the edits made by the involved parties above) Question to the admins: What is an interaction ban and how would that solve the problem or administer justice? Remember that all parties involved may operate at the same articles and that the problem did not involve edits in user pages only. GK (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it has escalated onto every talk page, both user and article, and that is quite enough. It doesn't appear to be stopping no matter what the original content dispute was. Each party seems to be as guilty as the other at the moment. Stopping all interaction seems to me to be a step towards deducing the disruption to the project created by this whole thing, it may involve content sanctions and requests for comment in the future. SGGH ^ping! 10:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, a constructive SOLUTION

This dispute takes quite ominous form and I think that the administrators should not hasten to make a decision. There are couple of important points to consider.

1. Illusion of the closed world of Wikipeadia makes editors to behave in quite particular way. Sometimes to go over the limits imposed by the real, external world (insult each other too strongly). And 2. The solution may be a more strict application of the internal rules and establishment of strict anonymity of all editors. Here is why.

The illusion that the internal rules are general life rules applicable to the entire world is an exaggeration but very active editors tend to use vocabulary of the external world when being in Wikipedia. For example they will say that sockpuppetry is a crime, what may be an internal “crime”, but in the real world this is a part of normal behaviour, often highly praised behaviour. It is similar with other internal rules. Their meaning is the internal meaning which does not have much to do with the real external world.

The other important aspect is anonymity The intensity of editing and the freedom of confronting concurrent opinions, as I suspect, is very much increased thanks to the anonymity. People are just unrestrained to propose more solutions if they do not care to expose their incoherency as persons, or to risk to make mistakes publically, or to show their ignorance.

Anonymity also protects to certain extent against accusations for behaviour which is not in accordance with the customs of the outside world. The disputes that take place on Wikipedia are often very cruel and sometimes, if the protection of the anonymity would not be there, some discussions would not be held at all, or we would have frequent appeals to tribunals for defamation. If everybody would be acting publically, the intensity of editing, the confrontation of the opinion and the production would be limited. Indeed, may be that the quality of the edits would be better, but the productivity would be, I may only guess, much, much lower.

Now the actual situation of a confrontation of me, as not anonymous, and the other two editors, who retained their anonymity, has created very asymmetrical situation. I am completely protected from strong attacks and defamation, but they, since anonymous, are not,. The fact that it is known who I am, every defamation may be seen as damaging to me and may qualify for juridical procedure in the “outside world” and almost automatic condamination of the other party. As I mentioned, the recent legislations and the US jurisprudence show that this might be very fast procedure. This kind of asymmetry is not beneficial for Wikipedia. Certainly intense defamatory discussions are also damaging but these could be better managed (what was not the case this time). Therefore my conclusion is that anonymity must be a condition for an editor on Wikipedia, under the condition that the administrators apply the rules of Wikipedia particularly these related to incivility much more strictly then they have been doing..

My conclusion concerning this particular case is that the great responsibility for the dead run must be taken by the administrators who permitted that defamation goes on for too long time (until this very moment) with almost no warning, or with occasional ineffective warning (to Simanos). Certainly the important responsibility is on the party which insulted (GK1973 and Simanos). Certainly, I should not have been permitted to disclose my personality since this immediately created inequality in protection against defamation. I could defame, but the anonymous opponents could not, or if they did, they had to count with application of the laws “external” to Wikipedia.

My bottom line is in fact that the administrators must apply rules more strictly and that the ALL editors must remain anonymous on Wikipedia.

My suggestion for the solution of this particular conflict would therefore be to certainly punish the party which insulted me. The punishment should be some reasonably long block. However, I should be asked, as soon as possible, to open a new anonymous account and thereby become equal to other editors in respect to responsibilities and vulnerability to the insults and defamation. The administrators must be asked to apply the rules more strictly, and in the future the non-anonymity should be forbidden on Wikipedia.Draganparis (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that after that manifest it should be obvious to all that DP has no respect whatsoever to any rule of Wikipedia. This endless rant, hollow threats, total disrespect to any rule pertaining the community he himself chose to enter, his unwillingness to engage in any coherent discussion, his blunt dismissal of the rules he does not like are what we had to deal with for months, what got him banned twice already, what we still have to deal with. He now has proven that he does not have the willingness to accept the rules and stop his crusade to change "the system"... His conspiracy theories fill our discussion pages, his threats are now open and directed against us, administrators and Wikipedia itself... Even when "seeking" help from the admins, he does it in a most inappropriate way... There is a reason why I have not been warned by admins, even though my interaction with DP was in pages which are constantly monitored. DP thinks that this reason is that we all cooperate to silence him, I say ask the admins. Ask them why they constantly warn DP, why his comments are being reverted, why they banned him. Just look how a case of an editor posting "warnings" against other editors ends in (laughable) open threats of legal action against everybody. How he thinks that sockpuppetry "is a part of normal behaviour, often highly praised"!!! He writes "I am completely protected from strong attacks and defamation, but they, since anonymous, are not" What does that mean? Either bad English or that some law protects him while no law protects us!!! That he may say what he wants, because we have not revealed our identities, while we cannot because he says he has...!!! "The fact that it is known who I am, every defamation may be seen as damaging to me and may qualify for juridical procedure in the “outside world” and almost automatic condamination of the other party" So, he does directly threaten us!!!??? He has to know that this alone is reason enough for a ban, let alone when this happens here, in front of everybody, in front of judging admins who have also received similar threats... And then he asks the admins to ask him to set up a new account????? Why hasn't he done that already, since he thinks of his anonymity so highly? I can produce pages of such texts, where DP "politely" accuses, threatens, insults, defames, lies or jumps to conclusions... I called my interaction with him " a surrealistic paranoia" and now I think that many will understand why. Should any admin wish to investigate further, as to how and when I insulted him and why, I will be more than happy to produce all the texts he bombarded me with, even when I asked him not to. To my mind, this is a clear case of heavy disruption, as most of us have encountered more than once. And all this, from a user who has no real contributions to any Wikipedia articles other than disrupting the work of other editors and engaging in discussions he makes efforts to heat. Just look up his history. Of course, it goes without saying that now the charges have been upgraded from disruption to legal threats. I guess that now it is time for what admin Atama proposed when he wrote (just lines above DP's comment, clerly showing DP's total absence of respect) that is completely unacceptable. I'd say that one more such accusation, or attempt to reapply such "notices" or warning people against removing them, would be grounds for a block (not sure how long a duration is appropriate) Is such a threat enough? GK (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Note I canvassed WP:AN here to get more admin consensus on the proposal. SGGH ^ping! 07:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose mutual interaction ban as proposed above. While some aspects of GK's reaction may not be optimal (e.g. the extremely long postings just above!), I see the disruption in this affair being ultimately caused by one side alone, that of Draganparis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the question of the administrator was to propose possible solutions. Please excuse me for intervening again. This is again misunderstanding and I wonder why this happens all the time. Permanent judgment of a “Greek speaker” about the issue of the “English language” in this dispute is typical for the lack of arguments. The core of the dispute is DEFAMATION against me. This has not been stated by GK, but is the essential cause of problem. My text is sufficiently clear, there are no treats to anybody, I never “threatened” any administrators, I only asked some questions. My proposal above is a proposal of how to protect Wikipedia from the cases like my case and from people like me (editor whose identity is known) and from the people like my opponents (anonymous editors who distribute insult and defamation). Again I think that the administrators failed to inform the involved editors that my identity has been verified and by not informing them about this they exposed them to further - hypothetical of course - legal treats. The editor who is anonymous can not complain of libel simply because his identity is not know and can not be damaged, while known editor could (GK did not understand this point). My present interventions are obvious sign of good fate and certainly not implying that I will make a legal case against Wikipedia!!!? However, defamation on Internet has become a serious problem and Internet sites must be protected from both: spread of defamation and the treats from the involvement of the legal system. There is quite good page on Wikipedia too, but I offer just couple in addition:

http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/it&law/c10_main.htm

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss13/docherty.shtml

http://www.megalaw.com/top/defamation.php

http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html

And a recent scandal case with Google:

http://www.reputationdefenderblog.com/2009/08/19/model-wins-defamation-suit-google-forced-to-reveal-anonymous-blogger/

Again, I propose to think about, for example, whether instructing me to go back to anonymity as soon as this dispute will be over would be reasonable; and on the other hand to instruct the administrators to increase vigilance about defamation on Wikipedia; and certainly to apply some retributive measures against editors that inflicted defamation on me would be needed. I will of course accept the apologies from Simanos (who I find to be sympathetic to certain extent, we had nice discussion on logic and I found him to be quite smart guy) and GK 1973 (whose patriotic tendencies I certainly understand). I hope that they will accept my apologies again. I certainly apologized to both of them many times. It is absurd indeed that each my friendly word, use of conditional, carefully stated objection or an apologetic statement is understood as “new insult and distraction”. This is why I really do not know how GK imagines that an apology or civilized good will intentions could be stated. If he would understand this intervention again as vicious and destructive, I think that we would really need an expert advice to resolve the conflict.Draganparis (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Tag team editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-> The Race and intelligence article has the problem that a number of largely single-purpose editors are trying to write the science themselves from primary sources. Not very much can be done about that as far as I can tell. But when it comes to history, they are now trying to play exactly the same game on the recently created History of the race and intelligence controversy. They want to write the history themselves using primary sources. They seem obsessive about their chosen subject and mostly edit very little else on wikipedia. So of course the game is to brush aside reliable secondary sources - in this case 4 pages from an account by Adrian Wooldridge, who is certainly not a Marxist historian (he lunches with conservative grandees and is Management Editor of The Economist) - and replace it with autobiographical statements by the person, Arthur Jensen, about whom the history is being written. They then spend time comparing that person to Gandhi and Winston Churchill. In this case, a fairer comparison would be to Enoch Powell, who sparked similar controversy to Jensen and produced copious amounts of primary autobiographical material, none of which is used directly in his wikipedia article. Fortunately, now that this has been reported here, several more widely experienced editors are now participating in the article and restoring some sense of normality to editing. If administrators want to look at the kind of edits I make, they can look at the carefully sourced material I added this morning [23] on Cyril Burt and the newly created biography of Otto Klineberg, a social psychologist whose career followed a slightly different path from that of Arthur Jensen. Or then again, they can look at Handel concerti grossi Op.6 or Christopher Jencks. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

proposed topic ban for Mathsci

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

• As far as I am aware my mainspace editing is without blemish, on a broad base of academic articles in the arts and sciences.
• By his silence on the matter, Ludwigs2 seems to be supporting a whole series of WP:SPAs. This is completely in line with his previous attempts to skew wikipedia editing policy to favour unduly representing minority views on fringe topics. His emotional and highly charged statements about me are no different from those of Abd (talk · contribs): they do not reflect my editing patterns in any way and are simply out-and-out personal attacks on an academic mainstream editor, unsupportable by diffs.
• Captain Occam is continuing slowly to push for inappropriate primary sources to be used by asking the same question over and over again here: Talk:History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy#Primary sources - Jensen justifying himself 30 years after the event. These continued questions appear to have degenerated to trolling, Persumably when I tire of responding, this will give him the green light to reinsert material that several other editors have already removed. Isn't this just a slow version of edit warring on his part? I have no point of view to push in any of this, even if Captain Occam obviously has. Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Mathsci, please leave me out of your mudslinging. How can I support anything through silence? Frankly, I've been avoiding the page(s) because you are being such an inveterate ass it give me a headache dealing with you. I have better ways to spend my time at the moment than watching you run around shouting "Off With Their Heads!" like the frigging Queen of Hearts. --Ludwigs2 22:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Ahem. you wrote above: "if Mathsci physically threatened to kill you". Please could you explain to administrators what that kind of phrase was supposed to convey. Please could you also explain what anything you have written here has to do with me insisting on secondary sources for the history of a controversial event. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • It meant that there are a number of people who would willingly defend you well past the point of common sense. You command a decent amount of well-deserved respect, Mathsci, but you often receive respect beyond what you deserve, and I think it encourages you in your bad behavior. it's unfortunate that people resort to that kind of thing, and unfortunate that you let it turn your head, but it's not really a major issue. just something to be noticed. As to your second point: I don't have a problem with you insisting on secondary sources. I have a problem with you running your mouth off about how everyone else is a POV-pushing SPA who ought to be banned. I suspect that you're right, content-wise, but you're such an ass about it that you tick everyone else off, and so what could be simple, straight-forward discussions turn into knock-down, drag-out bitch-fests. frankly, if you were topic-banned it would leave me free to go in and make the same arguments you're making now, except nicely, and then the page would make some progress. sorry, but your arrogance gets in the way. --Ludwigs2 00:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I wonder whether you might please stop making these insulting remarks. I also hope that you are not acting on behalf of Captain Occam. [24] Mathsci (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • And I wonder whether you will learn to treat people civilly in your own right. Somehow I suspect the answers to those questions will always be the same... Also, they have some marvelous new therapies available for clinical manifestations of paranoia. How frequently do you have these fears that people are conspiring against you? --Ludwigs2 04:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • You have had a formal warning from an administrator on your talk page. Suggesting now that I have some form of "mental illness" is a personal attack. Please refactor the above immediately and apologize to me on my talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Have I? where did you get that idea? and even if it were true, what business is that of yours anyway? again, you're being arrogant: I can handle handle my relations with other editors without your help, thank you, and I will do a far better job of it than you've managed to do with Occam. You'd best look to cleaning up your own house. --Ludwigs2 05:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
              • You were warned by GWH and shortly afterwards wrote the above PERSONAL ATTACK. Your behaviour here has not been normal. I have privately contacted an administrator. Please redact the insults you have written and stop commenting like this. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
                • • C'mon guys. You're both good contributors. Let's take the rhetoric down a notch.   Will Beback  talk  06:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
                    • [25][26] Hmm, 10 content edits for April, with 2 of those to Goatse.cx. Mathsci (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion to Captain Occam et al.

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

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

Continued tag teaming

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

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

And that this 1998 two-page partisan opinion piece

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal for a Topic Ban

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

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

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

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

Sefelt and Frederickson smile at each other.

Bromden slides along the wall toward the door.

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

Bromden reaches the door and looks out. No one is there.[27][28] --120 Volt monkey (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support topic ban on race-related articles for SPAs like Distributivejustice, Captain Occam and Mikemikev. Too much time is being wasted by them, with no benefit to this encyclopedia. Here is a reminder how I make content edits [29]: Jensen in that case was one of three secondary sources used. A neutral, well-sourced set of edits, neither anti-hereditarian nor Marxist. Mathsci (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support SPA topic ban There have been too many dubious researchers in the field, so it is too easy for SPA editors to inject dubious POV positions into Wikipedia. The enormous energy that the SPA editors are focusing on this issue is not assisting the encyclopedia. Mathsci is not an SPA and should be thanked, not restricted. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose POV warriors hurling anathemas at each other. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC).
• Comment Here is a synopsis of what I have observed at History of the race and intelligence controversy. Mathsci wrote a good article but relied too much on Tucker (2002) and without needed attribution of Tucker's POV. Wooldridge seems to be a neutral source, however. I pointed out two NPOV problems here. One has subsequently been fixed (not by me). One remains in part, described here. User:Maunus may intend to address this issue. A number of other ostensibly experienced editors have added suggestions to the talk page. Their continued efforts would probably settle the issue. At race and intelligence it seems that everyone is burnt out. --DJ (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Didn't Mathsci have a topic on this just a couple weeks ago? Why is Wikipedia's rule against forum shopping not being honored here? It's annoying to see this issue constantly taking up so much space here. --Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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

section break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose I see a lot of evidence presented by Captain Occam and the others that they aren’t the ones causing a problem here, and nothing equivalent has been presented by Mathsci at all. I can't tell what the people voting "support" are basing their opinions on, but it does not appear to be based on the specifics of this situation. I don’t have much experience with Wikipedia, but seeing six editors get topic-banned (if that’s what happens) as a result of people literally ignoring the evidence here gives me a pretty bad impression of the site. --Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note, there was an earlier thread where additional evidence was presented, though not enough to reach consensus that time around.[30] IIRC, Ferragho the Assassin didn't participate in that thread, so s/he may have missed it. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Here’s an earlier version of the page, from before it was blanked: [31]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose topic ban This is absurd. No diffs have been presented. You can't be banned for editing a small range of articles. End of story. Bring the evidence before the discussion starts. I will note that I looked through diffs presented by Mathsci, and they all look like this - Occam asking Ludwigs for help. That's it. Otherwise it's all rhetoric, which is really hot air. I will note that I am slightly involved in race and intelligence, but I've only added a ref to a study which found black IQs higher than whites [32].

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

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

More disruption by Mikemikev

• Mikemikev (talk · contribs)

This editor, a single person account, has now left this threat on my talk page.[33] This is was his 294th edit to wikipedia.Mathsci (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

It is your current editing patterns that are being looked at [34]. That you edited in 2004 using IPs 139.184.30.19 and 139.184.30.18 is almost meaningless (these are surely public IPs at the University of Sussex, which could be used by any undergraduate there). At this stage, it might be a good idea to read carefully what administrators have been writing rather than giving the appearance of harrassing and bullying an editor like me. Thank you, Mathsci (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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

• Tracing your IP? You've been openly advertising it to try to prove that you are not an SPA. You have now started reverting Slimvirgin's edits with strange edit summaries.[35] If you've been editing here since 2004, surely you must realize that this is not a sensible way to proceed. Have you thought of discussing things with Slimvirgin on her talk page or the article talk page, if you disagree with her? Mathsci (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Rehashing

A lot of the information being discussed in this section was already discussed on this page recently: [36]. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI complaints about Mathsci

I have looked through the ANI archives and found some of the previous complaints about User:Mathsci: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wiki Cult Task-force and User:B9 hummingbird hovering Breaking Basic Academic and Wiki Rules

The user edits mainly Tibetan Buddhist pages. He claims to have gone beyond the need for teachers in TB tradition. Something even elderly Tibetan great lamas who have been brought up in over half a century of full-time monastic education and practice would never dream of saying. This basically amounts in the tradition to declaring oneself a saint which is in fact never done. The user of course does not even understand Tibetan, colloquial or classic, never mind his understanding of the subject which would be equivalent to a young teenager in a monastery. The actual problem with regards to Wikipedia is that he creates wild specuation in the name of inclusivity! When editors ask him for academic refernces or any inter-textual citations, he dismisses such basic standards which any academic or Wiki admin would require. Secondly he removes the edits the protesting editors have done and engages in editing wars. Thirdly he claims he has certain rights on article pages he has started. Fourthly he justifies his unfounded innovative speculations without citation or reference, which he does not deny, by saying he is a tantric! When told all of of TB followers opposing him are also tantrics, he merely states that unlike the rest and even elderly Tibetan high lamas who still have regular teachers and tuition, such as the 75 year old Dalai Lama, he has gone beyond such needs!

We now have hundreds of thousands non Tibetans following TB worldwide. Only less than ten westerners have set themselves up as teacherless and lineageless novelties. Interestingly unlike the hundreds of valid western teachers and lamas within lineages as well as hundreds of academic Tibetologists, these few self appointed saints do not even speak or read any Tibetan dialect are still beginners interms of education even after decades! A few of these have setup organizations, cults, in the USA and Europe and some have presence on Wiki via members. But they are few in number and almost everyone of the hundreds of thousands of followers in Asia, Europe and Americas follows one of the lineages of the five Tibtan schools. Even if there is occasional disagreements amongst them they all acknowledge each other. So basically the picture is very satisfactory.

The actual problem with B9 hummingbird hovering is that he gets into editing wars, claims ownership of articles, dismisses others' valid academic requirements for references and citations and justifies his self acknowledged wild speculations in the name of inclusivity and as a superior rare tantric who has gone beyond the others who are asking for references which has also been the norm in Tibetan shedras and monasteries for over a thosand years when the rest of the world hardly insisted on it. So we need an unbiased admin judgment in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zhitro). Also as he is extremely active in Wikipedia, Wikiversity and Wikisource we need to make a record of his behavior early on. So that he does not enforce his mere speculations with no background whatsoever inside articles. If the decision goes in his favor, it means his section entitled "Cross-cultural correlates and possible antecedents" which he also admits has assertions that have no refernce or background except his personal special tantric feelings, can be repeated across atciles within Wiki by anyone?

Finally apart from this lone editor, I think Wiki needs a special small admin section which co-operates with various cult watch-dog bodies, who deal with their victims daily, in order to combat their misuse of Wiki. The reason is that cults basically milk their victims financially and in terms of resources and logistics whch we simply can not match. And also are time-rich via members and can make their members have organized co-ordinated behind the scenes presence as you well know. Unlike big corporations, they do not fear such adverse pulicity by being uncovered since they indulge in worse actions and are used to much worse reputation than being accused of abusing Wiki.

The question of a special section on cult presence on Wiki really needs to be addressed as it already is too late. I'd suggest to recruit several new admins and relieve some more experienced admins of their usual duties to have time to setup such a special unit and task-force or at least a think-tank to start drawing up contingency plans and guidelines and strategies. I think this will be unavoidable and the sooner it is started the easier things will be as many lessons need to be learned early on which will take time. Thank you for you attention. Occasionaled (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) Per the header for this page, new reports go on the bottom. I would have just moved it but after the 2nd or third edit conflict I gave up. If you erase this and paste it in again at the bottom successfully at some point feel free to recreate it without my comment here. (2) Per the header for this page, you are required to inform the editor that you are complaining about. Looking at your contributions, I don't see that you have. If it wasn't for (1) I would do (2) for you, but at this point I leave it up to you whether you really want to recreate this following the proper instructions. Syrthiss (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that the thread is at the bottom of the page, I've notified User:B9 hummingbird hovering. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:49, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Hooray for persistence! Syrthiss (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• B9 hummingbird is a long-term problem editor. I had a conflict with him some time ago regarding his addition of original research and absurdly flowery language to articles, which seems to have continued right up to today. I think a WP:RFC/U is probably long overdue. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This reflects my experience with B9 as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mine as well. Mitsube (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I remonstrated with this user regarding the titling of articles with additional Wylie transliteration. This user responded in a very strange way, and it took several other users to convince him/her that we should even be heard. Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As to the original complaint above, I can't really see that we need a 'Cult taskforce' -- as to B9, the two problems (penchant for OR and purple-bordering-on-ultraviolet prose) could probably have at one time been handled with mentoring; the (in my opinion) more pernicious problem is B9's inability-cum-refusal to work in a collegial, collaborative manner [If you dare to disagree or edit one of 's/his' articles, you'll hear about it, believe me] and tendency to own articles (example: Talk:Seventeen_tantras). Also worrying is s/hir readiness to simply revert any edit without discussion if s/he finds it disagreeable. Compounding the problem is the fact that the subject area (Tibetan Buddhism) that s/he edits in is pretty rarefied and obscure so not many people are in a real position to challenge hir edits, even if they had the stomach to do so and gird their loins for the rain of flowers that would almost certainly follow. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Syrthiss, it is my first time on this board and someone had kindly reposted it at the Bottom. As for informing B9 hummingbird hovering. I only registered as an editor less than a week ago as a result of reading his bullying tone to others who had asked for citations, which I stated in the article talk page. I also immediately informed him on his talk page of my comments in the article talk page. I did not even edit the article to remove his fantasy projections and self confessed baseless conjectures. After a few days of receiving his now apparently obvious usual treatment I removed his wild sentences. At every stage I posted my reasons and replies to him in the article page and on his talk page which has been ongoing for the last several days with regular input from him. Before I posted here he had removed all our discussions on his talk page. So there was no point and I was sure he was reading the article talk daily as he was writing there daily. Furthermore I had informed him previously that I would state a complaint in the admin board. All this is obvious from the article talk page which I linked above. Also as to why there are not many Tibetan experts here, which I am not one of, is due to the fact they are usually educated to let things be and unfold by themselves unless matters are getting really serious and harming people. That is why many merely read and smile. I'll copy and paste this section in my talk page so that future users have a reference buried somewhere regarding B9 hummingbird hovering if they come into contact with his odd behavior. Now onto the serious matter.

CULTS: There are cults and highly dubious organizations discretely present on Wiki that have members assigned individually or as organized groups with their own private forums to coordinate regarding their presence, editing wars and regular input on Wiki. This is a serious problem that will get worse and will not go away by merely being ignored. People like me can see their work but we simply do not have the time or the ability to take them on. Some experienced admins should discretely organize a private forum and form a cult think-tank. They can do some basic research and then contact cult watch-dog bodies, not necessarily as Wiki admins initially. Then they can draw up a white-paper with their recommendations and strategies and working solutions for organizing a special unit. This initial stage can be done discretely before being made public. I suggest that two types of experts be included on this initial think-tank. Firstly a few who have legal backgrounds or are preferably legal professionals. Secondly people with a background in helping abused victims as they need specialist care and attention and are prone to known psychological problems and can recognize the hallmarks of the cults' presence on Wiki. Thirdly there is a lot of professional help and expertise out there with regards to cults both in the active support groups and also academia who would only be too glad to help in any way they can.

I hope some see the inevitability of this undertaking and that the sooner it is started the better it will be for Wikipedia. Thanks for reading. Occasionaled (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In my experience Anti-Cult groups are as detrimental to wikipedia as cultmembers in injecting POV and bias into articles about New Religious Movements. Most articles about New Religious Movements are fairly balanced and I don't know of any that are biased in favour of the movement. If anything the right solution is not not to insert more Anti-Cult (socalled Cult-watching groups) POV, but to enforce neutrality by using and applying sources by relevant scholars in the field of sociology of religion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mannus. Your message is addressing three parts. Firstly I have been reading the organized efforts of three western groups claiming to be new lineages in Tibetan Buddhism, self contradictory by definition, some of which have been on cult watch-dog bodies' lists and databases. I'm not naming them as there is no point in starting a long discussion here. I was informed last year by a former member of one of them who has setup a half-way house website on his site how they coordinate their efforts daily on Wikipedia in a private forum. It is going on and in great detail as many editors will know. This is just a few in the rather small area of TB not to mention other really large areas. We can only guesstimate what the overall extent is. They systematically patrol Wiki articles and remove links to websites by former members and edit out content they are ordered to. Also they inject their own propaganda patiently over time by wearing down individuals with their organized resources. Many can testify to such organized behavior.

Secondly it is not just about new religions or new beliefs as you state. It can involve groups who are pushing certain services and products in organizations which are pseudo families. Cult study is an academic area and is not related to content as such or a genre of beliefs. Rather it is a mode of organizational behavior which cuts off individuals from family and society by well known tactics and cocoons them inside the organization. There are many experts who teach and research the area in universities and also help groups. We can not dismiss this well established academic area f research by a few sentences of generalizations. Thirdly I did not advocate what the final cult task-force should do or even the initial think-tank should recommend in terms of guidelines. What you opposed were your own ideas.

I merely suggested what I thought would be helpful and is long overdue. The cult related problems will get worse if they continue to be ignored. In the meantime habitual tendencies in cults to covertly manipulate Wiki in an organized manner will only grow and it will be more difficult later if things continue as they are. This whole area needs to be researched by a select group of Wiki admins in private initially. Thank you. Occasionaled (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Occasionaled. The probvlem of POV pushing is not limited to "cult"s and there are well established procedures for dealing with it. I intentionally do not use the word "cult" because it is nothing but a pejorative description of New Religious Movements which shows that the person using the term is sympathetic to the Anti Cult movement and antipathetic to the groups themselves. There is no academic field of "Cult studies" as you sugggest - that academic field is Sociology of Religion and specifically the field of NRM studies. What you call "cult studies" is in fact the Anti Cult movement which is an interest organisation lobbying against certain religous or ideological groupings that they identify as "cults" usually supported by ex-members and family members of group members. What I am saying is that wikipedia should neither adopt a viewpoint in favour of any religious or ideological groups, but also not the viewpoint against them. Both vuiews should be presented fairly by using objective sources written by academic researchers of the groups - not by either "watch-dogs" or "members". Yopu should of course do what you can to keep NRM related pages objective and neutral - possibly supplying the anti-cult viewpoint when it is missing. I consider myself an admin working towards the same goal having worked towards improving and neutralizing pages about controversial groups such as Jehovah's Witnessdes, Falun Gong, Mormons and several others. This can all be handled within the normal editing guidelines of wikipedia (all though it is often difficult as is editing in any controversial topic) and does not need a particular taskforce or policy changes.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mannus. Thanks for your post. As I said I did not advocate what should be done by anyone or group here with regards to disciplinary action or modifying Wiki content. So much of your points is not what I advocated as you claim. You also dismiss any need for looking into this area. Secondly you limit cults to NRMs and ignore my point on this point in my previous post. Thirdly you also limit the opposition to the Anti-Cult movement when in fact it goes well beyond that. This caricaturization is often used by cults and has been exposed for decades now. Opposition to cults goes beyond activists and includes medical experts as well as researchers and legislatures and journalists and intellectuals and more. Fourthly you dismiss any Cult related research is taking place in academia and limit it to a few sociological studies. In fact they are researched in Psychology departments widely. You can read some papers here: http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_topic_collections/tpcol_research.asp. Fifthly you do not answer points on widespread coordinated cult manipulation of Wiki which I am sure many would testify to. I encourage those readers who have encountered this large growing problem to be informed of this discussion here. Just because you do not want to see it does not mean it is not there. The pattern that emerges from the above points is that you tend to simplify situations and issues into binary camps and then reduce them as much as possible further. This Manichean method is an old style early structuralist approach which has very limited use and blinkers one's worldview.

You also do not address points regarding the time-rich, resource and member rich and covert organized way these groups act here and how against these Goliaths an individual has no chance given enough time. They also justify any breaking of the rules. By ignoring these points and saying everything is as good as it gets and regulation abiding lone users are just fine you are showing a complete lack of empathy in not just action but by lack of understanding. Not all cults have organized covert presence here but some do and you are saying it is not happening and even if it is everything is fine. The groups should be identified and registered somewhere on Wiki and continually monitored until they stop. This is very basic logic. Opposing researching the issue by a think-tank by some admins and not doing anything yet by any task-force or other later body, is a very strange position that defies basic common sense in any organization under systematic attack by various groups. I would suggest some sort of quantifying how widespread these organized covert activities are is a necessary step. These organized activities, against the rules, also create extra work for admins and dealing with symptoms and illegal activities by individuals under order in the long run. As opposed to identifying the issues and patterns in a research group, as well as identifying the organizations targeting Wiki is ultimately much more effective and less exhaustive. The lessons learned will be very useful in other areas too as it will become obvious. This process will be undertaken eventually and the sooner the better for all admins and Wiki. Thank you. Occasionaled (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I also like to clarify as I stated before that unlike commercial organizations (and most political regimes/groups) cults do not care if they are branded as manipulating Wiki by breaking it's rules. They simply do not care as they face much worse adverse publicity anyway. The other benefits of looking into the issue I referred to in my last paragraph above that would become obvious later, was meant implicitly to apply to other organized efforts against Wiki.

It is crucial to cults to maintain a false perfect image of themselves and a black and white worldview in the mind of their followers. I just had a practical idea with regards to Wiki which I like to share and Mannus and other dear users are free to attack and dissect as it might not be a good idea in the final analysis. OK here it is:

Problem: Systematic Removal of external links specially those exposing misdeeds by various groups and persons. By reading various talk pages and histories I can see how various groups in general and some cults in particular remove links exposing their activities and if confronted they merely wait for some months and delete it time and again.

Solution: Protected External Links. These 'protected semi-permanent links' can be on top of the list of external links identifiable in kind by a mini icon next to them. The procedures for nominating, electing/placement and possible later removal of such protected links can be decided in any way that is optimum to Wikipedia.

This method will be extremely helpful to trapped cult victims. I think forming the research think-tank on organized attacks by cults, possibly other groups, is unavoidable. I really do not have any more to say on the subjects I raised on this page . Thank you and goodbye to all. Occasionaled (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of wikipedia is not to provide easy access for "cult victims" to websites "exposing misdeeds" about the organizations they are members of (or to whitewash any controversial organizations). The purpose of wikipedia is to provide neutral and objective information about organizations which does not pass judgement on or provide soapboxes to any particular viewpoint - but describes all notable views about a topic. I agree that there should be a stricter policy for the inclusion of external links in controversial articles - but I think the policy should be to link neither to positive or negatively biased sites unless they are of exceptional notability. Rather external links should be to objective reliable sources of neutral information. I personally routinely remove substandard external links from many articles including articles about controversial organizations - and I remove both positively and negatively biased links if they do not meet the standards of our policies about external links.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mannus. Again you are misrepresenting my points and/by reducing the issues to basic oppositional binaries and very simple dialectics. However modern science has moved towards complexity, non-linearity and emergence. Also, I find various points in your response contradictory. However I agree as you sum up: "I agree that there should be a stricter policy for the inclusion of external links in controversial articles". Well said. Occasionaled (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not representing your opinion - I am representing my opinion. And my name is Maunus.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. I apologize about getting your name wrong. I never said you represented my ideas but misrepresented them as you can see in my first sentence above. I wonder how you can not see such basic things. You also like to reduce issues to basic sides, preferably good and evil, and have no qualms about pronouncing judgments and prejudgments such as the purpose of Wiki is this and not that by again misrepresenting the debate. But you do not stop there, you even go onto filter the two black and white sides of the debate by boiling them down further to suit yourself. For example if you said WWII was 'Italian Fascists fighting Russian Communists' it wouldn't be wrong but it is obviously misleading. It has been interesting. I wish you, B9Hummingbirdhovering and everyone all the best. I also apologize to user 65.46.253.42 who is quite right and everyone else as I should have split this section into two subjects originally. Occasionaled (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My point is that I can not misrepresent your opinion when I am not even attempting to represent it. My comments reflect my own opinion. I wonder how you can not understand such basic comments. You however is misrepreseting my opinions and even claiming to know what I like and how I think. I am not booiling it down to two sides but to three - for, against and neutral. My statements about what the purposes of wikipedia is and isn't is not my judgment, but the statements of the basic policies that wikipedia work by and you would do well to read them and understand them before trying to establish taskforces to combat viewpoints that you dislike.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. I beg to differ. You claim to be neutral but you started to oppose the ideas I put forward. You also are quick in prejudging. My position was not to turn Wiki into a haven for cult victims as you misrepresented, you defend making it a haven for cults. My point was as stated that Wiki is systematically being attacked and abused. At first you said it is not happening and then that even so all is fine. I also pointed out many aspects and errors in your comments and arguments. Wiki's mission statement can not be reduced to the few choice words you decided upon either. I also explained a possible group to carry out any recommendations would be appropriate only after an initial research group. You misrepresent that too despite my pointing outs.

You oppose any research group into organized covert attacks and/or manipulation against Wiki. This is very strange and illogical. You merely repeat that I want a group to do certain things, false as I proved, and you do not answer what is wrong about the preliminary research think-tank idea. I now think you might have motives you do not want to share with the rest of us by diverting attention away from any research into systematic covert manipulation. Carried out by various groups, not just cults, where research into the problem will have benefits in other areas too. I did not say what I recommend either.

You are saying that Wiki as an evolving organism should allow various groups to continue to covertly attack and manipulate it against it's rules and that secondly everything is just fine and thirdly any research think-tank, not action orientated task-force yet, should be stopped at all costs. These positions are extremely strange. You are basically saying Wiki should not have any immunity mechanism whatsoever nor should be allowed to take any actions. But you go further and state Wiki should not even think about defending itself by researching the area. You divert the issue of research and think-tank by misrepresenting it as the later stage of task-force which might not be recommended by the research group anyway. I wonder why so many shifts from no threat to no need for action to diverting the idea of researching the threat. None of it adds up. I can only conclude you have other interests and/or ideas too.

As ever, best wishes. Occasionaled (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to make my self clearer then. Look, my problem with your suggestions is that in several aspects the problems are already handled by several existing processes or the venue of solution you propose is not in line with the fundamental principles, policies and philosophies of wikipedia. Below I will outline how some of your proposals seem to collide with policy:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. This means that everyone is allowed to edit regardless of which groups they belong to - Nazis, Cultmembers, Lobbyists. The requirement is that they edit in line with our policies of neutrality and verifiability. We have many editors who are in favour of controversial viewpoints but who manages to edit within the guidelines - and when they do that they improve wikipedia by adding coverance about minority viewpoints. However, when editors with minority viewpoints do not manage to edit within policy we already have many venues for adressing those problems: depending on the nature of the problems they could be resolved through a dispute resolution process or simple processes of keeping single editors in line with policiy by threatening with and using blocks or bans. This is the reason that I don't believe POV pushing from cultmembers represents a problem bigger than or different from normal POV-pushing by any other kind of interest organization. Wikipedia is geared to handle that.
• Now, it may be that the area of NRM's and other controversial organizations is so small that few editors edit there and that certain viewpoints are overrepresented. This is again the case in several other subareas of wikipedia, but it is of coure a problem. The solution is of course that the editors who are aware of the problem group together and direct their attention to those pages and use the normal editing procedures to establish neutrality in those areas where there isn't any. This is all within standard wikipedia practice. It is easier to catch POV-pushers and work against them when more editors have pages watchlisted and a more likely to notice harmful changes to those pages. One way to achieve a higher level of awareness about certain pages would be to make a wikiproject dedicated to a certain topic. There is already a wikipeoject about New Religious Movements - editors interested in monitoring pages about NRM's or implementing a watching strategy of NRM related pages could join that project and work through there.
• The reason I am saying that I don't think it is correct that wikipedia as a community should take any specific action towads cult related POV pushing is then that 1. we cannot single out any particular group whose edits we work against. As long as editors work within our policies everyone's edits are welcome. 2. We already have welfunctioning and well established process for monitoring and countering POV pushing by ideologically based groups. This being said you are of course more than welcome to bringin up specific problems with editors or with articles on ANI or on any of the wikiproject pages dedicated to resolving that kind of problem. And you are completely within you right to convene a think tank with editors of your own choosing to work on any issue or problem that you perceive to be pertinent. Having just laid out my reasons why I don't think it is the wikipedia community that should do this but rather any group of interested editors, I would like to express my interest in joining such a group. I work with articles on NRM's in Mexico and elsewhere and I have noticed POV pushing both by apologists and detractors of these groups and I would be interested in collaborating on maintaining neutrality in these areas. Dixi.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. Your post is much clearer in style and I welcome that. On the content of your paragraphs:

• You basically say everything is fine as it is. I explained before I don't think so.

• I explained communal cocooning in cults is not limited to NRM's nor is their opposition limited to activists as it has been proven for a while. Secondly my main point is not merely about POV pushers. It is about organized covert manipulation of Wiki content. Two different topics which should not be misrepresented or limited to each other.

• 1. I did not propose any such actions on POV pushing. My main proposal is to initially set up a group to research the issues of organized covert manipulation which is different in nature and methodology to what you claim I am saying. I am not saying what should or should not be done specifically or even laying out the ontology of any later possible processes. 2. Everything is not just fine as you say again. Secondly my point is not about specific articles or editors as you misrepresent again. On your last points in that paragraph I'm glad you finally say that such a research think-tank is a good idea. It was I myself who originally proposed a select group of experienced admins, preferably but not limited to those with legal academic psychological and support background, to form such a research group. I also disagree when you say "wikipedia community" should be excluded. Furthermore I think Wiki management should be involved with the ongoing secret research of this group. On the final statements: what I proposed was different. It is not about merely POV pushing by various NRM individuals, but organized covert ongoing campaigns against Wiki content. The aim could be two fold. Initially researching how covert organized campaigns are mounted. Secondly on drawing up proposals on how to deal with them. These will be merely proposals as any think-tank can only make recommendations and by definition does not have any executive or even legislative powers. So I am talking about a whole different set of processes.

The subject can be cults in general which is a large problem but the results and the lessons learned will be immensely beneficial and possibly can be applied later to the larger area of covert organized manipulation by non-cults which is a much larger problem. Even if this research is not preferably initiated by Wiki community, it inevitably will be carried out by some academics in which case it won't be limited to cults as a sample case. Thank you. Occasionaled (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Two distinct issues

I think there are two issues being discussed here that are being conflated and therefore neither is being presented very clearly; the primary complaint was about the behavior of a particular user User:B9_hummingbird_hovering and a number of other editors have voiced similar difficulties; can we (someone) move forward with whatever the appropriate remedy is there (someone mentioned a User Request for Comment). The second, much broader issue about addressing cults at Wikipeida seems harder to tackle and I'm not sure how -- but regardless can that please be decoupled from what seems to be a more pressing (and longer-term) difficulty with this particular user? 65.46.253.42 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

True. I think a RFCU is in order about B9Hummingbirdhovering.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Then we need to start with the process as outlined Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance which indicates the starting point is two editors must try to resolve the conflict with B9 on that user's talk page. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

flowery obscuration, love it. I answer I love language and have an exceptional lexicon and use language pointedly and with etymological intent. being linked with cults, wonderful and baseless. and my dear wikipedian-collegiates wonder why I rarely enter into conversation with such bland stupidity, all of them, those MOANING, have justly had their egos branded by the Hummingbird, this is true. as for not having a Teacher, that is not the intention of what I wrote and taken out of context. I have had innumerable teachers and still do, i have a root Guru in body, but that said my principal guru resides in my heartmind in secret aspect and I no longer need a teacher in the way that it was being presented to me is mandatory. It amazes me that a fervent, unaware, scaremongering bigot has the floor in an Administrator thread, frightening really that these people are my peers, well nonduality is peerless and I have no fear. there is no evidence that the said Hummingbird is a member of any cult. all of the ever-so-important ISSUES presented have already been resolved and i honoured the undertakings given. now the case for "Dharmic Traditions" is becoming clearer day by day. I am intrigued as to what the mentoring points are going to be. that said it was cavalier for me to revert Shitro but I did so as an Inclusionist. the three editors complaining have added no content to the article and no citations, in fact I am the only editor to add citations to the article and I created the article in question. the content should appropriately be branded POV and citations required and left at that. now to demonstrate my value to our project would one of you peers like to mention my number of edits as well as the number of distinct pages I have edited and note and estimate the number of citations I include and have included to Our encyclopedia. in respect of that these ever-so-important ISSUES on a very limited number of incidents comparatively are minor. there has been no check and balance in the presentation by my 'peers' and that is disreputable

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Dude, pass the bong already. Calling your fellow editors "scaremongering bigots" is bad karma. Skinwalker (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

if it is remembered the initial issue, what I wrote and what has happened as a result and the nature of the complaint, my assertion is founded, to assert that Xitro is not related to the class of spiritual activities related to progenitors/ancestors is false. btw Skinwalker thank u so much for illustrating bland stupidity so admirably and do u know which indigenous culture "skinwalker" comes from? B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"check and balance", unpacking that for the uninitiated: impartial, independent investigation of my historical contributions from two Administrators (who edit and add cited content to Wikipedia unlike Mitsube) with whom I have NOT had an editing history, heard of conflict of interest? rather than just reacting to impassioned, partial editors writing with agenda with whom I have had a protracted editing history B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think making colorfully worded Personal Attacks in the ANI thread dedicated to your behaviour is unlikely to make others see the beauty, truth and reason immanent in your viewpoints.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Now all can see clearly the heart of this problem. These are rather obscure topics to most of us, and B9's writing only makes it more difficult to comprehend. This is what I tried to tell him eighteen months ago to no avail. Wikipedia is supposed to be written for a general audience with no prior knowledge of the subject, and anyone reading B9's musings in various articles is only going to get confused instead of educated. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nor were you the first to encounter, and comment on this phenomenon. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• (undent) Actually the discussion I linked is from several months before that, but the overall point that this is a long term issue and has been discussed several times is valid. B9 refuses to admit there is any problem with what he writes and the way he writes it, ignoring or ridiculing anyone who dares to suggest otherwise. A perfect example from his talk page last month, a user asked him to review a policy regarding page names and his reply "I just gave the policy a deep graze and I have contravened nothing in fact I intuited it." [47] Is it just me or is that just gibberish? I have tried to parse the sentence out and it doesn't seem to be saying anything logical. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not just you. In addition to B9's unique prose and attitude, he seems to be fond of citing articles that he himself wrote at wikisource. Here he cites this wikisource page, which he wrote. It seems to be his translation of a Tibetan tantra. This article has similarly circular citations, as does this one. IMO this violates WP:NOR. I strongly recommend a user RFC. Perhaps Wikiproject Buddhism has someone who speaks Tibetan and can sort out the sourcing problem. Skinwalker (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Moving on with this discussion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering is now live and awaiting certification. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Look2See1

Look2See1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• In his edits [48], [49] and [50] calls out a user (myself) in an (article's) talk page, even after I warned him not to over both talk and e-mail. Shouldn't he reserve that for his or my usertalk? Also accidentally deleted some redirects (then blamed me for it) and exhibited bad form in movereqs, not that that matters. FYI, the consensus for the type of moves I made is at Talk:Angelino Heights, Los Angeles; though moves can be made without community imput. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 22:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition, now he is apparently ignoring talk page suggestions and exhibiting a general lack of CLUE toward policies Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 00:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

re: User:Purplebackpack89

Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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. The discussion is about the topic Purplebackpack89. Thank you. Content issues Civility problems

I am a newbie. I do not know what this process is yet. I take it seriously. My goodwill intent was for clarity of article linking and retrieval use.

Re: Purplebackpack89's calls out a user (myself) in an (article's) talk page, even after I warned him not to over both talk and e-mail." - I'm sorry but do not understand problem and never received understanding that a user's wiki-i.d. is not ok to refer to as is on all history pages of all articles I tried to discuss with him. His message was not comprehendible. I hope this isn't repeating that mistake again - I'm terribly confused - so respectfully suggested; if one reads my note to User:Purplebackpack89 talk page a half-hour or so before this it may help show the shared problem. Purplebackpack89's Also accidentally deleted some redirects (then blamed me for it) and exhibited bad form in movereqs, not that that matters. I have already explained to him it was my mistake I couldn't fix, and did not 'blame' him - I was over my wiki-tools head. However unskillfully and incorrectly I regretfully attempted to do it by, the essence of my message to Purplebackpack89 was "please discuss this with me and others, it is causing disruption, difficulty and confusion (his unintended vandalism)." My putting a notice on article talk pages was not vandalism, but my best effort to share concern.

A basic wiki-guideline seen is "be kind to newbies." That has not been my experience here with Purplebackpack89 yet. I feel attacked by a wiki-expert. Purplebackpack89 has erased my questions from articles' talk pages, may be wrong but thought it was not ok to delete non-vandal talk. Not knowing another route or how to use this page properly the best I can do it insert a ((vandal|Purplebackpack8)) above. The intention is not a struggle, game, or to be provocative ! - I've no idea what else to do. I've asked for his help before this note without success, and so will try this. Perhaps some messages from him are backed up while working on this, I'm not fast on a computer. Did not click on new wiki-message banner when have been in midst of writing concentration - not ignoring and can do no better as not tech-savvy. Very open to help resolve this and learn more about my mistakes, to not repeat them. I am not a vandal, please consider looking to my San Fernando Valley articles' edits to see sincere intent to be of service. I hope the ((subst:ANI-notice|Purplebackpack89)) above is the required notification to Purplebackpack89, the request is respected and will try a cut/paste to his talk page in case above isn't proper. If anyone reviews this please consider helping me to resolve it peacefully.

Thank you, ___Look2See1 (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, what the Sam Sheridan? This guy can hardly be classified as a "newbie"...he has over 1,000 edits (albeit very few on anything but article space). The guy at one point used broken links as part of a move justification; links he broke himself. Also, even newbies have to learn WP:CIVIL. I never accused him of vandalism; but incivility (hey Purplebackpack!), lack of CLUE, and bad form. And honestly, if you're over your wikitools head, just stop before you cause a major headache for some sysop Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Look2See1 guy still continues to be disruptive on my talk page and exhibit and general lack of CLUE, one that is inexcusable for a person with over 1,000 edits and three months on the city. There are things I've done that I've explained in an edit summary, on his talk page, AND on my talk page, and he STILL doesn't get it. I need some intervention here--look at his edits in Wikipedia space, User talk space, and article talk space to see why Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor Purplebackpack89, in my experience, is not honoring Assume Good Faith or WP:CIVIL protocol. To begin with expertise; this is my first computer (ever) and I am a 'newbie' - no argument from a stranger is wise or appropriate. Family and friends are amazed 'the Luddite' is even able to correct spelling in a wikiarticle. The "1,000 edits" are primarily doing article and "[[ category:__]]" links. I'm recuperating from surgery and so have the time to do numerous simple little edits, probably nothing "sysop" (whatever that may mean). My understanding is that it is not a requirement to be facile in code-lingua or be a technophile to participate in wikipedia. I respect those abilities but do not have them.

I'm not being disruptive on any of the talkpages, only trying to discuss, alone however without Purplebackpack89's comprehensible (or even direct now) responses in return. My phrasing is always polite (never in a "Look2See1 guy" gender presumptive and dismissive or "inexcusable" accusatory tone). Perhaps it's novices' questions that are disruptive to Purplebackpack89. Unfortunately with no help from Purplebackpack89, nonetheless I found on my own that the '3' to '2' names transition for the L.A. districts Name Template has been in discussion for some time, with consensus to begin. That is very acceptable (as if my sole opinion mattered). If Purplebackpack89 had calmly, clearly, and respectfully communicated that history and process (and not taken questioning personally) no misunderstandings would have arisen for any of us here.

Quoting Purplebackpack89 about me; "he STILL doesn't get it" and "general lack of CLUE" - is so because his attempts were in a jargon I do not use or comprehend. No one is unintelligent here, just different dialects. Purplebackpack89 continues to misjudge, misinterpret, and misunderstand my intentions, words, and actions. Purplebackpack89 does not respond or initiate to discuss directly together, and they are free not to do. The last two Purplebackpack89 entries above had no notification to me, perhaps only a first one requires that? Nonetheless, since Purplebackpack89 has consistently chosen to not work this out together, I need some intervention and counsel here please. This conundrum is trivial in the scope of life and world issues. My goal is simple peaceful resolution. Thank you for any assistance with this.---Look2See1 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not polite to out a user on an article page; if you have to say something about a user, say it a) on his talk page, or b) here. Nor is it polite to pepper this page and your talk page with my name in bold or italics. You claim that me starting this thread is a personal attack, I reference WP:NPA. A personal attack would be "Purplebackpack has a small penis", not "Purplebackpack has violated Wikipedia policy". You also claim I'm taking edits in bad faith...remember that there's a limit to AGF. With regard to these additional entries, they are merely continuations of a thread (a discussion with ==This== at the top)...I'll notify you if a new thread arise Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

When communication is not mutually understood it is not helpful to our resolution of this issue. Eg: what is AGF. Please try stopping the using 'in-house' acronyms to a member of the wiki-public 'not in the circle.' My understanding is that wikipedia accepts people of different abilities and tech-fluency. At my 'basic level' I'm not starting new articles or making templates. I did get a 'Barnstar' for being a wiki-gardener. I'm grateful to help at that level. That limited skill set also precludes your use of sophisticated tech terms and jargon being successful or appropriate here however. It's often meaningless to me, and does not contribute to our resolving the concerns. Please retry to match the 'barnstar' on your talkpage for being an excellent communicator amongst editors, your award says: The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. This barnstar is awarded to Purplebackpack89, for his dedication to comprimise and his ability to work with other editors to come up with amicable solutions which satisfy everyone. -so we know you can. Thank you.

Look2See1 t a l k → 01:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

When you don't understand something, you should ask someone to explain. Most regular editors on Wikipedia are willing to explain things when asked, or when they sense that something is off. "AGF" for instance, is short for "assume good faith" - you can read about it at WP:AGF. Folks here use such abbreviations and acronyms because they refer to Wikipedia's policies and practices which get discussed a lot, and using them makes things move along a little faster. But, really, if you don't understand, you gotta ask! You can't just write off what someone's saying to you because you don't understand it, you've got to make the effort to communicate, and give the other person the chance to express what they're saying in a clearer way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I hereby resign from this issue. A mentor reviewed the communications and pointed out to me that neither party has had their communications mutually understood, both react to a negative phrase and miss the rest. So be it - no blame on either. I need to go and help with the Gulf oil spill situation. This now is a ridiculous non-issue here. [User:Purplebackpack89]], drop it, do not expect further communication with me. I dismiss the '((vandal)) report-admin request' I posted here (whatever your correct jargon may be). To Admin. persons, I will certainly listen and respond to your inquires or advice. ---Look2See1 t a l k → 02:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Where will we find these remarks from a mentor? I don't see them on your talk page, and I don't see them on the article talk page that was in question. Please post a link or diff, or tell us where they are, because I would really like to read them. As far as I can see, Purplebackpak89's comments are perfectly understandable, while your comments here, and ones such as this: [51]

More transparency before further changes, with notification and 'auto-forwarding' of 'old 3 names' titles (in both article links and new searches) could avoid difficult startles. The Reseda, Los Angeles, California (OR Reseda, Los Angeles ?? eg: the 'crap shoot' problem for now...) has discussion on talk page of neighborhood vs. district vs. census-designated place (CDP). If the change is inevitable perhaps doing so in district name alphabetical order would take out random 'crap shoot' searching now (or explaining another system being used).

are quite seriously opaque. I don't really have a clue about half of what you're talking about -- "the crap shoot problem"? "official startles"? I get the impression that English may not be your primary language. If that is the case, perhaps you should avoid editing which requires a command of the language that you do not seem to have at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

He has been talking to Chzz Diannaa ^TALK 01:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but I didn't see anything there that would seem to fit L2S1's description; perhaps it look place off-wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

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

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boba Phat (2nd nomination), several editors who should seriously know better (Milowent (talk · contribs) and MuZemike (talk · contribs) being the biggest offenders) have been calling the nominator, Biohazard388 (talk · contribs) a sockpuppet and automatically assuming bad faith from the moment the nomination began. Their only bases is that the AfD was Biohazard388's first edit. They have also accused two other SPAs, Rogueslade (talk · contribs) and Mandoman89 (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets or meetpuppet without any evidence. This of course has erupted in a war of words between all the involved editors, and despite a warning to Milowent about assuming good faith and not biting the newbies, has shown any indication he will do so.[52] MuZemike has also indicated that he will not assume good faith either.[53] A sockpuppet case was opened and closed clear all three of the SPAs of the sockpuppetry charges[54] and there has been no evidence that any meetpuppetry is taking place. Now with the SPI closed, Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), who filed the SPI case,[55] is calling for the AfD to be closed as no consensus even though the discussion has only been going on for two days.[56]

On the other end, I've warned Rogueslade about making personal attacks,[57] which he has since apologized for.[58]

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

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

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

Biohazard388 did not say he was an admin on another "Wikipedia", but on another "wiki", a generic term for any site which uses wiki software. If he's an admin on another Wikipedia, I'd suggest he should say what it is, because it's certainly not under this name, which is active only on en.wikipedia. [59]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This thread is nonsense. there were clear reasons that allowed for a sockpuppetry case. There are three great reasons to file a sock puppet case, One the names and MO matched Dale Jenkins. Two neither of these accounts have done anything other then vote delete, [[60]] [[61]]. Yes in the end a couple weren't socks of Dale Jenkins. That leaves meat-puppetry or truly uninvolved editors that created a account just to vote delete in an afd. I would ask how many votes in the last ten actually allude to sockpuppetry concerns? 90 percent of all delete opinions have been issues with the sourcing or lack thereof of notability. Either way none of this required a report at ANI. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Zlykinskyja's actions on Murder of Meredith Kercher

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

Here, by the way, you can see a sample of personal attacks and threats: edit summary, [62], [63], threat?, edit summary, edit summary, [64], threat, [65], edit summary, [66], [67], [68], edit summary, edit summary, [69], [70], [71], [72].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Believe it or not but he wasn't the first and won't be the last. That includes even me, like it or not: [73] [74] [75]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Random section break 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comment. Even the comment of an entirely uninvolved admin inviting her to refactor a comment was seen as biased [76]. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

My opinion on the article can de found here:

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

and

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

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

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

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

• If Zlykinskyja = that user, they should definitely not be editing this article, as we've been here with exactly the same issues before ([77]). Their block log appears to show them being blocked for sockpuppetry mainly regarding the article as well (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikid77). Oh, and the userpage that said this. Now that probably tells you a lot.Black Kite (t) (c) 12:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Here are some more recent ANI threads for more insight: [78] and [79].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• I don't think I have ever said that Z should be banned. If I have, please provide a diff.
• I don't think I have ever engaged in "horribly aggressive treatment of Z. If I have, please provide a diff and I will apologise.
• Z says she has not engaged in such conduct against me. Well, what about accusing me of hypocricy,[80], effectively of being a sockpuppet of User:FormerIP,[81], anti-American editing,[82] accusations of POV editing,[83] and cherry picking facts,[84][85]not being fit to edit a particular section because of my POV edits,[86][87][88] "conspiring to obstruct another editor" and getting "meatpuppets to do my dirty work".[89]. To be fair, the worst of these kind of accusations have not been repeated recently.
• Yes there are different views about the case. But there are probably as many views as there are people - not just the two views that Z tries to use to characterize editors. The only way to reconcile these views is through consensus but that is virtually impossible when one very vocal and opinionated person will not engage in the consensus process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed remedies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of proposed remedies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really? You might want to check your block log: [90]. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Swamilive

Indeffed sockmaster Swamilive (talk · contribs) has contacted me by e-mail requesting an unblock. I've suggest that (s)he use the unblock template, but have had another e-mail back saying that they are finding that they cannot edit their talk page. Block settings show that they should be able to edit their talk page. Any suggestions on how best to deal with this? The blocking admin (SQL (talk · contribs)) is currently inactive. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Their talk page redirected to their user page, and the redirect was protected. I have unprotected/blanked the talk page. They should be able to request unblocking now. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 21:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Swamilive requested an unblock, which was turned down, with a request that Swamilive show that they are sincere by providing a substantial improvement of an article on their talk page. Swamilive has responded saying the they intend to do minor improvement rather than major improvement. As long as the editing is constructive I don't see a problem with it being minor improvements rather than major improvements.

I'd say that by approaching an admin with a request to be unblocked, Swamilive is showing that {s)he has learnt from the block (i.e. appears not to have created yet another sock) and therefore should be given a chance. Maybe some editing restrictions would be required, such as being restricted to the Swamilive account. If unblocked, it can always be made clear to Swamilive that any problematic editing would lead to the block being reimposed - i.e. a suspension of the application of the block rather than a lifting of the block. The declining admin mentioned in his rationale that the blocking admin needed to be convinced of Swamilive's editing would be beneficial to Wikipedia. As SQL is inactive, this should not be a factor to consider. Other admins are quite capable of making this decision, given SQL's absence. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pinch me if I'm wrong, but (aside from a few specific special cases) aren't we all restricted to one account? caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we aren't all restricted to one account, I've got two! however alternative accounts must conform to WP:Multiple Accounts. Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm the admin who declined the request--I responded with the {{2nd chance}} template after looking at his history. He was blocked for egregious sockpuppetry in August 2008 (see SSI report). Additionally, Checkuser confirmed two massive sockfarms after he was blocked. As near as I could determine, that was the last we heard of him until now. With that history, I felt we needed to see evidence that he was indeed willing to be a constructive editor before unblocking. The part about the blocking admin was already in the template. Blueboy96 12:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm one of the editors who have dealt with Swami's socks and IPs (in fact, my user page had to be protected because of him). He hadn't been very active with his socking mainly because range blocks had been placed on him throughout most of last year up through the beginning of this year (see range block log). Every time that the range block expired, he almost instantly came back. While the range block is now expired and he hasn't been extremely active AFAIK, he did come back in February (see this edit) and in late March (see history of A-frame). Since I'm extremely biased here, I won't get too involved, but I wanted to make sure that most of his activity was known. Thanks. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 02:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Here's another edit, from 10 April. —Mark Dominus (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap ... after seeing that, this user in my mind doesn't deserve a second chance. Full decline. Blueboy96 03:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboy96, AGF only goes so far. Looks like Swamilive still hasn't learnt yet. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Orchestrated attack on Levi Leipheimer

See http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=6813&page=10. There appears to be an orchestrated attack against Levi Leipheimer, using as sources a blog, and a dead Internet Archive link. One of the forum participants is suggesting that the information be added to the article, and he'll try to get it reported at a reliable source so that the reliable source can then be used as proof. See his comment at Just keep reverting it, then apply for page protection, and in the meanwhile someone email me a scan of a hard copy of the sanction announcement and I'll get it on a non-blog site that can be cited as a legit reference. Woogee (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The Archive link is working now, it seems to be intermittent. But it's still a dodgy reliable source. Woogee (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless or until there's absolutely reliable sourcing, I've removed the "see also" links to List of doping cases in cycling and List of sportspeople sanctioned for doping offences. jæs (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted and protected the article to the pre-BLP violations. WP:BLP is a non-negotiable policy, and the spotty nature of the refs is unacceptable in light of such allegations. The minute something in a truly reliable source (well respected newspaper/magazine/journal) is cited, the article may be unprotected. --Jayron32 03:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

List of doping cases in cycling reverted and protected for the same reason. Acroterion _(talk) 03:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If the cite is from Velo News, that is a good bicycling magazine (velonews.com) and can be cited by page number unless someone thinks it's being misrepresented. RS's don't have to be on the internet. However, whoever said "time for an edit war" needs a warning if they are editing here. Tendentious editing an off-wiki orchestration are also problematic, and may call for intervention. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The cites were to a blog and an archive from winningmag.com that was not entirely available at archive.com. I would expect to see more than one source, either in print or on the web, for this kind of issue. The off-wiki canvassing to manufacture a source was of greater concern. Acroterion _(talk) 12:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

More information on that forum. One of the participants says, I placed a coke boogar in Levi's nose in the second picture on his wiki page.. The second image doesn't seem to have been edited for two years. Does anybody understand what this person is saying? Woogee (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked that too: it just appears to be somebody mouthing off on a forum. Some eyes on the subject are needed, as protection comes off in a few hours. Acroterion _(talk) 01:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A few hours and 29 days. I protected it for a month pending resolution of objection over sources. Given the freshness of this, I thought it wise to encourage use of the talk page... --Jayron32 01:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes: May 30, not April 30. Acroterion _(talk) 01:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what will come of it, given that these new editors to Wikipedia believe we are all objecting because Levi Leipheimer is our hero, despite several pleas for them to review WP:BLP. Their current stated course of action is that one of the new editors is also a journalist, and he plans to write an article and have it published in a reputable source so that there will then be a reliable source. The tail is officially now wagging the dog? jæs (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That's happened plenty of times before. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ani medjool

There is no conceivable good faith way that an editor who ever wrote this clearly[91] or demonstated template proficiency (subst, paramters) [92], could now be writing as terribly as [93] and using templates as poorly as [94]. I'm not involved in IP issues at all. I don't even know which side this editor is. I do, however, know that either they have transfered their account, which is an indefable problem, or they are trolling, which is an indeffable problem. In either case, they are unwelcome on that account. Why are we putting up with this just because every editor who has noted it is tainted? Look - I'm not tainted, I'm not winning some content dispute with this - just take action. Hipocrite (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't feel any urgency at the moment, but the case is compelling.--Tznkai (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the language a bit. His very first few contribs were relatively good English, then it deteriorated quickly but continuously – not a sudden switch as if the account had been taken over by a different person, rather like a single person making a decision to pretend to be a weak English speaker. However, some early edits show there is quite an expert mastery both of English idiom and of Wikipedia lingo (e.g. [95]: "the source says what it says", "no ifs and buts", "trying to censor the article"; [96] "reliable sources from world-wide mainstream media") – but all of that sugared over with deliberately distorted grammar. This has all the looks of a sockpuppet attempting to cover their tracks. Given that they also appear to be a constant source of tendentious editing, I'd favour an indef block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As an FYI: I blocked Ani medjool for outrageous personal attacks earlier today. He wrote that he couldn't respond to this complaint, so I offered to copy-and-paste any replies he posted on his Talk page. Instead, Ani medjool chose to retire. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

He has retired before. Habitual incivility and battling, potential trolling, the comments that led to his block, and referring to the removal of Malik Shabaz's block notice with "delete lies by [Israeli] lobby puppet"[97] means that an extended or even indefinite block should be imposed so that he does not again come out of retirement to disrupt the project.Cptnono (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It was amusing being called a puppet of the Israel lobby. I just wanted to explain why Ani medjool wasn't responding to this complaint. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As I've said a number of times before, I believe this is a strawpuppet account and I'm surprised they haven't been indeffed already. Strongly support such an action. The disruption is continuous and highly offensive and there are no good content contributions to point to at all. Tiamut^talk 20:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ani medjool is no stranger to ANI. Methinks it's time he was indefinitely retired from editing. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and reset the block to indef. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Good, I was going to do the same after reading this. I've seen him being disruptive before, and clearly isn't going to reform. Fences&Windows 15:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am being stalked and simultaneously ignored. This paradox is so appalling, but it is crushing me.

Resolved

 – IP blocked with talk page revoked after this unblock request [98]. –MuZemike 21:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hohenloh (talk · contribs)

A glimpse into the problem

I am being treated appallingly by this person, not only have they stalked me (Such as when they reverted some perfectly legitimate edits for no reason whatsoever, such as here, here, here, and here) but the said person has also refused to engage with me like an adult, has bitched about me behind my back, accused me of being incivil (Which I find hilarious since the said person has treated me as little better than you would a rabid dog) and furthermore, has went out of his way to make my experience on this website a living nightmare.

I hope you can help, as as you can see, I am running out of patience with the conduct of this user and don't know why he is treating me in such a foul way. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind my saying so, this will hardly help... You might wish to refactor your comment, since that appears to violate WP:NPA. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The dynamic IP might 'refactor' these personal attacks while at it.[99][100][101][102].[103] RashersTierney (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why, he treats me in a terrible way, why should I have to be so passively aggressive with him, in the manner in which you seem to advocate. I find that kind of misconduct to be galling in the extreme. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Salvio giuliano, your comment as highlighted above is very poor form. Also, the comment you left at Talk:The Nation (Irish newspaper) was very unhelpful, and although I would not have deleted it, I really don't know what you expected to achieve by making it. The first two edits you give as examples seem to be fairly reverted - the first being a removal of sourced info with no edit summary, and the second being an unsourced and potentially contentious change of nationality. Hohenloh should probably be conversing with you rather than ignoring you, but I don't really see an issue with his edits. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This appears to be a content dispute. Hohenloh ought not to have ignored you, but I do not think that warrants either this thread or your reaction. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me re-state - I find your NPA policy to be an utter joke, it fosters a culture of passive aggression, allows policy wonks to manipulate the rules of human courtesy, and defies all common sense. It is a religious mantra devoid of reason, and I REFUSE to abide by it. I don't understand why 90% of wikipedians engage in pedantic policy debates, when they ignore the substantive issues behind article creation and maintenance. Denis Diderot must be rolling in his grave! 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you refuse to abide by our policies I fear there'll be very little we can do... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I think it's accurate to say that if you refuse to abide by it, your Wikipedia career will be short. Wikipedia is what it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

86.40.210.11 (talk · contribs): I suggest using article talk pages to discuss controversial article changes versus your current approach of attacking experienced editors. The latter will only result in your being blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh this is just great. The conspiracy unravels before my eyes. How conceited. I challenge an 'experienced' editor on his general courtesy, you scream about the rules - rules that he is clearly flaunting by the way - and then make me into the bad guy. I never expected to be treated in such a way, I've a PHD in modern Irish history you know, I actually know what I'm talking about and some of the obstruction 've met by online bullies is not unalike the schoolyard tactics employed by real life bullies. I deserve and demand a fair hearing, all of you are ganging up on me, please leave. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want the deference due to your degree, you'll want to go somewhere else.--Tznkai (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect deference, but that is the gulf in class between me and some users here. They interfere on issues they don't understand, then have the cheek to revert me. ME! I'd drink most of them under the table with my knowledge of 19th century Irish history. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable, verifiable, third party knowledge? Or your own unverified research and stuff you learnt at school? Have a guess which is admissible on Wikipedia, and avoid binge drinking. SGGH ^ping! 20:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Were are you getting this mumbo jumbo? Everything I've changed, I've changed for the better. I merely reflect generations of historical scholarship, something your policy cannot defeat by absurd pedantrys. Try harder, your spirited defence of this creature of the system might impress you ravenous buddies, who hide behind their 'dear policy', but who refuse to logically and reasonably discuss this issue with the merit and intelligence and compassion it deserves. You have all treated me intolerably here, and ganged up on me for some kind of deviant reasons, I know not why. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if you don't take the time to understand why the policy exists then Wikipedia is not for you. It is not built on what we say we know, but what we can verify and cite. If you can't reconcile with that, then perhaps you might want to publish your own knowledge in another medium, whereby it would become verifiable and Wikipedia might use it (so long as other third party peers conclude that it is a good source). Ranting about it on the ANI board isn't going to be very productive. SGGH ^ping! 20:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to stay, here are some policies you will want to read up on.:

• WP:OR
• WP:CITE
• WP:RS
• WP:NOT.

If not, well there you go. If you want to publish your own knowledge, I'm afraid that isn't what Wikipedia is really about. I suggest you write a book. SGGH ^ping! 20:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are you getting the idea that 'I want to publish my own knowledge'? I'm merely correcting some very grievously incorrect statements on this website. They are common knowledge, and exist in practically every narrative history of the period. I have edited nothing controversial, and if you took the time to listen to me, instead of judging me, you'd see that Hohlenhoh has very deliberately been stalking me, overturning perfectly fair edits for his own personal amusement. There is a clear and consistent case for harrasment to be made here.

As for your policies - I despise your policies. They were invented by internet lawyers so they could squash intellectualism and dissent and replace it with hideous pedantries and legal subtleties, which only allows extremists and bigots to stretch the regulations in order to dominate articles and insert their own minority viewpoints. My God, the contempt I hold for this website at this very moment is overwhelming. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --Smashville^talk 20:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours.--Tznkai (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is so contemptuous, you presumably won't be rushing back after your block. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

After seeing this, am I the only one having the feeling that our collective leg is being pulled? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and all in time for May Day. In other news, our esteemed binge-drinking Ph.D is operating across 86.40.192.0/19, but collateral damage is a bit high to rangeblock even anon-only. –MuZemike 21:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"I'll write a novel about you that will shame you all..." It sounds like he's already got a good start, from the flowery prose he uses here and elsewhere. I'm thinking a catchy title could be The Pickwiki Papers. Or if that's not catchy enough, how about My Wiki, Wiki Ways or Tropic of Wikicorn. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Wiki-Tavi? Conan the Wikipedian? Edit War and Peace? --Jayron32 23:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Abusive Admin. The 3RR Musketeers. "Citation Needful Things"--Smashville^talk 00:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A Tale of Two Cites? WinBeth? The Red Socks? The Sockpuppet Master? ANI-stasia..? - BilCat (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary comment

Do we need to be concerned about this potentially libelous comment? Grsz¹¹ 22:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say something to the user that left it. But give him a stern warning (like don't pull this shit again or its blocksville!). However, beyond that, I don't think anything is needed right now. --Jayron32 02:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I did, and got the type of response I was expecting from him. Grsz¹¹ 02:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If an edit summary is libellous (and this one certainly seems to be so), there are admin tools to remove it. RolandR (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In my defense, he's an obvious rapist.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Erik Möller

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threats from User:Poeticbent

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

Resolved

 – This is not a situation for WP:NLT. It is time to apply WP:DENY. Jehochman ^Talk 09:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: this edit.

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination), User:Poeticbent made the following legal threat in reference to a blog post (removed link):

"Which one of you did this (I removed a link to a blog post that accusses him of very grave criminal charges), you sick little bastard. I'm going to the police and I promise you, Crime Stoppers and the courts will find out who you are. It's just a matter of time, but you're going to pay for your dreadful lies, like all Internet criminals blinded by hate."

Since Wikipedia has a policy relating to legal threats, I felt this should be discussed here. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 23:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, do not go and block him under WP:NLT. He is not making any legal threat against wikipedia editors but against the author of one off-wiki blog, who could or could not be a wikipedia editor. He just discovered that someone made an incredibly difamatory blog on him, so it's normal that he is very pissed off. Let's not use WP:NLT as a big blunt hammer where it's neither needed nor intended to be applied.

At most remove his comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And don't link directly to the blog post, you are only giving free publicity to that guy. The link is in the diff is you want it. (sorry if I'm being pushy, but that sort of stuff thrives in getting free publicity) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Given that it relates to something that happened offsite (and it appears to be a definite case of dirty tricks), I don't see that WP:NLT really applies here. There's not even anything that really solidly links that posting to what's currently going on at AFD.

And, I have to admit, if someone accused me of that I'd be pretty angry as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I definitely understand the anger! I'm also confused by the timeline here. The posting says April 9th, but the AfD started on the 26th. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 23:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If necessary, also delete my edits which link to the blog. The blog looks "fake" to me, i.e., setup to anger Tylman. Since the claims are false, there should not be any links to it, or its claims. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 23:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm familiar with Wikipedia policies. My note was meant to inform the individual who produced that hateful page in blogspot.com about my real life intentions. I made a copy of that page and will take it to the police Monday morning. Meanwhile, the AfD seemed like the most appropriate place to share this information with the criminal who could NOT have originated anywhere else but there. My note was meant to reach only him. I'm sorry but there's no other way, at least not to my knowledge. I just found out about this today, although the lies were posted on April 9, 2010, I wouldn't even want to guess how these things are connected. -- Poeticbent talk 00:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Since User:Poeticbent seems to have confirmed he is going to the police (police lead to lawyers), why don't we just WP:RBI User:Poeticbent and move on? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That's not helpful. NLT is meant to protect productive editors, not off-site trolls that may have come SPAing onto Wikipedia. See comments made above.--Chaser (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • NH, and how would that be productive? He never targeting a member of WP. –Turian (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Because it's a course of action that would only make sense if you forgot your common sense at home........ --Enric Naval (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• OK, let someone make veiled legal threats and leave them out in the open. Don't bother me none :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• He "has made no legal threat. He has not stated any intention to sue Wikipedia or any Wikipedian. He has not indicated any person legal dispute with Wikipedia." Quoted from penultimate post about another case discussed here. Ty 00:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• "And on that bombshell", I'm closing this since there is no proven need for Admin intervention. Rodhullandemu 01:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is by no means resolved. Nobody raised the blog on wiki but Poeticbent himself [104]. Using the wiki as an intimidation and/or revenge platform for off-wiki issues is by no means appropriate. If someone writes something defamatory off-wiki, and he storms in here writing "Which one of you did this, you sick little bastard", implying that surely the participants in the AfD on his biography are out to get him, that's by no means directed at improving this encyclopedia. It's simply using it as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Poison the well and all that. Pcap ping 07:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. I don't care if he overreacts a bit. Poeticbent is clearly the victim here, of an extremely nasty and persistent dirt campaign. He deserves the full solidarity and support of all Wikipedia editors as far as this problem is concerned. Exacerbating the issue by calling for sanctions against him is highly inappropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ditto about support for Poeticbent. I don't know anything about any dirt campaign, as I haven't read through Poeticbents' history, nor have I been following the Tylman article discussions. But I did just look up the blog page that Poeticbent linked, in his fury. In my opinion the blog page is libellous. One cannot rule out that a WP squabble has spilled out into a dirty tricks campaign in the blogosphere, and therefore WP cannot just pretend it has nothing to do with it. My opinion is that Poeticbent gets our full support, along with a warning that his legitimate grievance should have been taken up through proper WP channels rather than with this outburst of rage. Then, WP should contact law enforcement authorities and explain the situation. That said, I expect such a nasty trick as this was sent anonymously from an internet cafe and we may never find the perpetrator. Still, the blog site that hosted the information may be liable. In any case, WP legal team need to jump on this immediately and fully investigate it. I think we all deserve a statement from them. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Chumchum7 - Yes, the blog was outrageous, but it had nothing to do with WP as far as anyone can tell. My sympathy goes to Poeticbent but what is there for the WP legal team to investigate? What can they tell us in a statement, that it's unfortunate that somebody is publishing bad stuff on the internet that WP has no control over? Poeticbent should contact law enforcement and law enforcement can contact WP if it sees fit. It makes no sense for WP to initiate the contact unless we think we have some relevant info which we don't (AFAIK). And per Enric Naval, the last thing we want to do is give the attacker more publicity. The attacker is obviously some fuckhead who lives for drama and would just relish the attention. Note: we have no idea when that blog post actually went online. The dates in it are likely to be faked, so "April 9" is meaningless. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I feel there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that there might be a connection between WP and the blog. All I'm asking is for the WP legal team to give us some guidance. Secondly, WP has an interest in deterring editors from escalating conflict in the blogosphere. Metaphorically, this is like a bar-room brawl - and somebody just got injured outside the bar. Are we, the bar staff, going to say its none of our business? If we care about the reputation of our project, and if we want to stop the possibility of this happening, we should get involved. But I would defer to our best legal adviser, or the highest authorities in our project. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree there is grounds for suspicion; I just don't see that WP (as an institution) is in a position to do anything at the moment, and we (us uninvolved users) are in even less of a position. If Poeticbent wants the WP lawyer's thoughts, he should call the office on the phone in private (actually that does seem like a good idea). It's certainly not for any of us onlookers to request something like that on our own. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have been contacted off-wiki with some critical evidence. It looks like Wikipedia might already be in possession of pertinent data about the perpetrator. The only question is whether such info (accessible to our administration) can be made available to others within policy guidelines, or, if its release would require intervention of law enforcement authorities and WP legal team since it concerns criminal acts committed outside this portal. I need to ask ArbCom about how to confirm the accuracy of tips I received today from the blogosphere. -- Poeticbent talk 19:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Jim Hurysz

Can someone please take a look at what has been going on with this article? This unsourced BLP has been lying around for a long time, and I decided to PROD it a week ago. That seems to have triggered off some bizarre editing and content removal by an IP claiming to be Jim Hurysz, and now a threat on the article's talk page from an IP who implicitly claims to be associated with the article's subject. It seems to be a threat against the numerous editors who have restored content to the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Article is semiprotected and AfD of non-notable subject is in progress. He is a fringe politician who ran for congress and got 3% of the vote.[105] 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Indiana Wesleyan University/Wesley Seminary

Greetings.

I have been collaborating with other users for quite some time on the Indiana Wesleyan University article and created the Wesley Seminary article. The Indiana Wesleyan article has been largely unchanged for a couple years, making it an established article. Administrator's have even looked it over and congratulated me and the other contributers for how in-depth the article was for such a relatively small school. Indeed, dozens of hours have gone into making it so.

However, to my shock, a new user to the article, User:Inquietudeofcharacter, completely removed about 2/3 of the Indiana Wesleyan article (including photos and critical information) and changed the remaining 1/3, while completely deleting the Wesley Seminary article (itself having been largely unchanged for several months) today without even giving an explanation! In fact, his editing was so extensive, that I could not even undo his edits on the IWU article (fortunately, I could restore the Wesley Seminary article). All of this was done by one user without so much as a single word on the discussion board, so I feel that all my and the other hard-working contributers' work on the article has been thrown away. Now, if he wants to have a genuine discussion about changes to the article, that's one thing, but what he did was unacceptable.

Please restore the article to it's previous state prior to his first edit, so that a discussion can take place prior to any wholesale changes to an established article.

Thank you.

Flavius Constantine (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You can restore this yourself by just pasting the old version on the page. Also, you haven't seemed to talk to him about this before you created this, and I'm sure he might have a good (or bad) reason for doing all of that. The old version doesn't look like it has any problems, so I don't see a problem in restoring it until you guys hack out an agreement. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I did post a message on his discussion page. Like I said, his edits were so extensive, I doubt he can even restore it. Thanks for your comments.

Flavius Constantine (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it can be done very easily; i did it. I have also prepared a place for a discussion; please use it. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 04:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much! Flavius Constantine (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I move to close this section. Inquietudeofcharacter seems to have backed down and is now participating in the article's discussion board without restoring his edits, at least initially. Thanks. Flavius Constantine (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

All-time Long Island Rough Riders roster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Surely there could have been some good faith shown to an editor with 35,000 edits and a large number of well sourced articles created. Articles don't have to be perfect the moment they are published, and if they aren't, part of being a collaborative project means you could just as easily pitch in and help get something up to scratch rather than wasting time bringing things here. Camw (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• I have removed Woogee's rollback rights, which have been misused [106], [107], and this happened two weeks after being blocked for edit-warring (with rollback). The BLP PROD can only be used on articles which are biographies of living people, so not for list of people. As Camw mentions, WP:AGF. Cenarium (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A query affecting a shared IPA address

• In User talk:68.81.95.145 I found a speedy-delete request at 02:44, 1 May 2010 by User:David Beals "{{Delete|I got the new airport, so if this ip edit again, it will be different person.}}". What is the situation here? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing he's talking about a Apple AirPort Express/AirPort Extreme, meaning the IP wouldn't change (the Airport would change his local IP, not his ISP IP), as well as the fact it's a reusable IP. Anyway the policy on user talk pages states that "User talk pages and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted; they are usually needed for reference by other users.", meaning it generally wouldn't be deleted. Seeing it's someone who appears to been used abusively, I'd just leave it. Also, I've notified the user (please refer to note on edit page saying you are required to notify any user under discussion) -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 07:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Beals is admitting he has sockpuppeted from the IP, which I called some time ago. Şłџğģő 08:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Resolved

 – Looks fine now Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone please clear out, and keep an eye on AIV. This is irritating. Aditya Ex Machina 08:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Pizzashoe

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

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

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

MaxxFordham (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User given final warning by FisherQueen Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User didn't get his way on Mitt Romney with regards to his views on educating people that the U.S. isn't the only country in the Americas, got away with edit-warring (maybe other editors were too kind) and is now continuing his campaign on United States. Somebody say something. user notified Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

208.186.134.103‎ (talk · contribs) just vandalized this post. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Seb az86556 (talk · contribs)

Resolved: No actionable complaints brought, no administrator intervention needed

User seems to think that she/he is some sort of "authority figure" here, as errantly suggested in [108] and HERE, when there's no apparent proof of that belief. Got away with trying to give some sort of false impression that she/he has more authority on how things are worded here than others have, enough to even create a false, nuissance report here. Somebody try to put a stop to this person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seb_az86556 user notified] MaxxFordham (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who knows the policies can enforce the policies ... it isnt just limited to administrators. If it were, their job would be a lot harder. I have no opinion on this particular content dispute, because I don't know what the full extent of the naming policy with regards to "US" vs "America" is, and have seen both terms in use on different articles, but from what I can see, a content dispute is all that this is, not really a case of misbehavior on anyone's part. —Soap— 10:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Soap, I've seen those, too. I don't see why Seb az and the others think this is such a big deal. MaxxFordham (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Keep edit warring, but please read WP:3RR, so you know what the rules are. As I stated in the post about you above which you never bothered to comment on, you gt away with it once, but I'm guessing that won't last forever... (Oh, and before you continue, please get decided on whether you would like to use your IP or your account, otherwise you could find yourself at WP:SPI. Thank you.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, seb, I didn't "get away" with what you think I got away with. All that stuff was already ignorantly reverted, and is still as it was when it was reverted.

And I DID bother to comment on your stupid post here, which comments were my post about you here. And don't accuse me of using my IP sometimes and my user name sometimes. You don't know whose user name goes with whose IPs. I have friends supporting me here, and if their IPs show up, then that's because they don't have user names.

MaxxFordham (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, dude. Keep it up. it's getting better every time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, yeah, whatever, haw, haw... You think you're so great, haw... haww... Look, you don't even know enough about referrals and links, etc. to quote MY edits! You put someone else's jumbo edit to this page as a link in your last comment, as if it were my edit to this page. If that's not a loser thing to do, then I don't know what is. Try forming your links right before posting them. IF THAT big edit came up with my name, then it's because of an edit conflict that I may have accidentally saved. I don't know what that big edit that came after ours is about.

Stop trying to be mr. big-shot power-user. It looks so terribly lame. MaxxFordham (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

OH! YEAH, seb, I see where some of the user-name-vs.-IP confusion came from now! I DID obviously create this section with your name (right here, with your name as the heading). What happened is that I closed the browser and then later opened it back up and then forgot to log back into here make this. Yes, that WAS me who made that, which is of course why I referred to myself having responded to you just above this. Simple mistake of forgetting to log in.

MaxxFordham (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User:MaxxFordham, your desired change reads like a statement of opinion. I can fully understand why others are removing it. Comments like "mr. big-shot power-user," "terribly lame," and "stupid" are in violation of the rules against personal attacks. If you want the lede to reflect this point, the only way to make that happen is by finding a simple, neutral wording for it, and getting consensus on the talk page for it. You're never going to accomplish that if you're insulting other users, since your desired information won't be in the article unless other users are persuaded to agree with you. As I was just saying to my seventh grade students when teaching them about persuasive writing, "if you insult your readers, they aren't likely to agree with you." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not this "seb" that I'm trying to get to agree with me on the wording. I was simply questioning his/her ill attempt to try to gain some kind of artificial power by acting like some sort of "authority." MaxxFordham (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The link you provided doesn't show Seb claiming any authority he does not have. All Wikipedia editors who know the rules have the authority to enforce them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

MaxxFordham, stop shooting yourself in your foot. Your complaints about Seb's supposed power trip don't need any attention from admins, but I and others might take an interest in your edit warring. Fences&Windows 14:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

On the content dispute, placing a comment on the accuracy of the term "America" for the US in that manner is undue weight to the extreme, to wage what appears to be a crusade of some sort to change "American" to "US-American" is ludicrous. On the user's conduct, I find his edit summaries to be slightly antagonistic but not overly offensive - I haven't checked his contributions yet. It's obvious to me that his changes are nonsensical and should be considered vandalism in my opinion. SGGH ^ping! 19:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Piano non troppo and personal attacks and judgments

Originally, this started at the Angelina Jolie article, where this editor removed content regarding Jolie's appearances on various People lists and mentions. An informal request for comments was opened there with all editors speaking in favor of including this coverage and only Piano non troppo speaking against it. Tonight, Piano non troppo then tried to remove the same mention on the Anne Hathaway with no specific rationale given for its removal and another passage that discussed issues in Hathaway's personal life. My revert based on those being validly sourced mentions brought this post to my talk page, which in part attacked my post regarding my health, by saying "Frankly, I find it dishonest of you to claim on your talk page that you are "retired" and "suffering from health issues", while at the same time making controversial edits, and being heavily involved in talk page discussions." The edit summaries referred to my "dishonest editing process" by attacking my health as being dishonest. I responded by telling him first, that my health status is absolutely none of his business and posting that at times my health might prevent me from responding was a reason for me not to edit and that my talk page regarding retirement was from crime related articles. His response with the edit summary of "Calling on you to stop editing" was "I suggest you stop editing until you have resolved your health issues. It is dishonest of you to state on your talk page that you are compromised, while at the same time making controversial edits." My response once again stated that my health was absolutely none of his business, but to clarify told him that the health issues cannot be resolved and that it probably would eventually kill me and went on to explain without gross details that the issues revolved around vision issues. I also reiterated that comments from other editors on the Jolie talk page did not support his position and then warned that if he did not stop personally attacking me that I would file a report here. I then removed his post to my talk page, saying I didn't want his post on my talk page. His response was "Back off. When you revert my edit, give no explanation for that, state on your talk page that you are sick, ("This user is currently experiencing health issues that may affect his or her ability to work on Wikipedia"), then delete my message to you with the explanation "no, I don't want that left here" you are acting dishonestly. Being sick does not excuse bad behavior. Don't confound your bad behavior with a content dispute." In fact, I left clear reasons for reverting him, including that he was removing validly sourced content and noted that the Jolie talk page supported mention of the People lists, so that is a lie, and removing a personal attack from my talk page was "dishonest", whatever that means, nor was I engaging in bad behavior in return article content that was properly source. Mostly, I want this editor to stop making personal attacks and mind his own business regarding my health status, stop passing his judgment on my ability to edit Wikipedia because I have health issues (how petty is that?) and also to stop removing valid article content when a discussion on the Jolie talk page supported the inclusion. This is untenable behavior on Piano non troppo's part that I will not tolerate. My belief is that WP:NPA prohibits such commentary and attacks. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Those People lists are valueless celebrity twaddle though. I also support the removal of the content. Off2riorob (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Except you are missing the important issue here, which is PNT's attacks on my health issues and ability to edit. I'm not sure what he thinks is dishonest, that I clearly posted that I have health issues or my ability to think and follow WP guidelines regarding properly sourcing article content. Besides, the People content is properly sourced and included on myriad articles and has been supported. My issue I'm bringing here are the personal attacks and aspersions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of things going on, here. First, I only happened across the article Anne Hathaway (actress) because I had just watched a movie where I was impressed with her performance. The Wiki article seemed overly promotional, and I did a standard edit. This was no part of a systematic plan. Second, I wasn't impressed that 30 minutes after my edit, Wildhartlivie reverted parts they didn't like. This seemed to me like stalking. I wrote a message to Wildhartlivie, then on reflection, reviewing their personal page and edits, decided to retract my message -- because of their track record. However Wildhartlivie chose to respond anyhow, while deleting my message from their page. At this point I began to feel I was being manipulated. Third, for a editor to publicly state they are ill in a way "that may affect his or her ability to work, then continue editing as before seemed to me to be dishonest, and I said as much. Fourth, Wildhartlivie is a party to a complicated discussion which I started to distinguish between a reliable source and the encyclopedic nature of material within that source. Apparently, in their view, anything written by a source such as "People Magazine" is encyclopedic. I dispute this, and the discussion is in the initial phase — although Wildhartlivie seems to feel that a few comments from him and friends have somehow answered this. So there are a combination of factors here. In addition, I don't appreciate being stalked, or being told issues are resolved that are not, having my messages deleted, rather than answered, of having an editor imply that they are sick, and therefore should not be confronted. Finally, I do not lie, it is against my principles. Like anyone, I can be mistaken, or misunderstood, or hit the ENTER key without due consideration. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh horse hockey and yet another bad faith claim on the part of this editor. This is not complicated. Piano non troppo repeatedly posted personal attacks regarding my health. First of all, I responded to his post to my talk page regarding the personal attacks he was making toward me. I have every right in the world to remove personal attacks from my talk page. His bad faith assertions of stalking are just that. Go read WP:STALK and see his and my contributions lists to see if his assertion is true. The Anne Hathaway article is yet another article that is on my watchlist and which I edit regularly and when I saw that he was removing similar content that was properly sourced, I responded. Compare Piano non troppo's contributions history and mine. I rarely edit the same articles as he does, nor is there one iota of support for any such accusation. Stalking is a specious accusation that is in no way supported and I resent his implication of such. I wonder how this editor would feel "manipulated" - because he posted a personal attack, more than one time, about me or that he read my user page? To state that I didn't leave an edit summary when I clearly did is not true, which PNT knows. That he didn't like my rationale is too bad, there was one left. Twice. See here where my edit summary said "no rationale for removing this sourced content)" and here where I left a longer edit summary. It's hard for me to believe that this editor can repeatedly state that I left no edit summary is, in fact, untrue. To state that I didn't is factually untrue. How else does one interpret clear untruths? And let's not go into his aspersions of my understanding of WP:RS. If a source is considered reliable, then it acceptable to use it. As for the discussion on the Jolie talk page, it's been open for a week, with PNT and one other editor who responded just now the only support to remove validly sourced content. The responses are there, the skew of the responses are clearly not supporting PNT's repetition responses to the issue. That I know one of the editors who responded doesn't in anyway mean that everyone who responded there are my friends. That is a gross misrepresentation of the demographic of the responders. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not accept inappropriate user conduct based on a medical condition. It's been tried before, didn't work." Looks like it's being tried again. Last week I has some confrontaions with Wildhartlivie over her unjustified removal of content from James Garner, which included her making fun of my spelling errors per this diff. The above quote was part of her response to my comments to an admin that I did not appreciate my spelling errors being made fun of because I had dyslexia. Actully, such comments should not be made by any user under any circumstances. So, while here on another issue, I notice that she is now blaming "inappropriate user conduct" on her own medical condition! Amazing! I can get into the details of our "interaction", and where I made my own mistakes, if needed. My point is there does seem to be a pattern of uncivil behavior emerging here, and it needs to be dealt with. - BilCat (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You are so far off base here, BilCat, that it isn't even funny. No one has said anything about bad behavior being blamed on medical conditions, nor should it be. In fact, my complaint here is that Piano non troppo was using my physical condition as a basis for his personal attacks against me and trying to force me to quit editing until they are "resolved". He was the one using physical conditions to launch attacks, at no time did I use my condition to try and justify anything. Read the entire issue again and factually see what the complaint is about. The uncivil behavior being reported here is by Piano non troppo, not me. You have it backwards. And by the way, as I said to you at the time, there is no way to discern that you have dyslexia, so using physical conditions as an excuse for anything is still inappropriate, especially when it is used as a basis to try to get rid of an editor who disagrees with you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• I did not use my health as an excuse for my behaviorher, yet you continue to falsely claim that I did. You are the one being disingenuous here. It is your uncivil behaviour that should be examined. - BilCat (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Further, a user making typos is not bad behavior, but making fun of the for doing so is, regardless of thier medical condition, or yours. - BilCat (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* Nor did I suggest you did, I simply said that using health issues is not a valid method to try and get rid of an editor. That you used the medical condition to complain about me has nothing to do with PNT's personal attacks. No one mentioned you in regard to that. Please give it up. I disagreed with you, I recognize that you don't like me because of that, but it has nothing to do with this complaint. Nothing whatsoever. However, your perception of what is going here doesn't seem to be clear. PNT attacked me because of my health. How is that related in anyway? Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• I was not using my health to try to get rid iof you, to to explain why I hightly offended at your uncivil behavior towards me. I don't like or dislike you, but I do dislike you continued misrepresentation of your own uncivil behavior. That's why I'm here, because I see a patter in your dealing with PNT. Actually, I don't like PNT that well from our interactions in the past, but in this case, he appears to be the victim, not you. - BilCat (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah geez. I didn't say that either. There was nothing uncivil in my comments to PNT and in fact, his use of my health issue note to use against me to try and force me to leave and launch personal attacks to suggest I stop editing is the issue here. Nothing I've posted here has been about your conduct. But make no mistake, PNT is not a victim here. He has not been disparaged or personally attacked. And I have not misrepresented anything here, I've posted diffs and links to what was said. I won't respond to anything else you say, but what I said here had nothing to do with you. Please try and assimilate that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It has to do with you own pattern of behavior. You aren't the victim here, but a willing participant with your own uncivil actions towards others, while playing the victim. That is why I am here, and threats will not get rid of me. - BilCat (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh for the love of Pete. I made no personal attacks or acted uncivilly toward PNT, can't you get it through your skull that he used my talk page note about my health to personally attack me and suggest that I should stop editing until my health problems were "resolved". I most certainly was victimized by this conduct and am not "playing the victim". I was attacked. Wholly and blatantly. And exactly what threats are you referring to that I made? That I wouldn't respond to you? How is that a threat? Talk about playing the victim. It wasn't about you, don't take on that cross. I'd suggest you strike that post. It's unsupported and unfounded and, in fact, fairly incivil itself. It's a sad thing when content disputes get twisted this way, truly it is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Piano non troppo should focus on the content and behaviour of editors, not who they are or what they reveal about themselves. Commenting on the health status of another editor in a dispute with them is inappropriate. If you don't like their actions, that's what you should be talking about. Wildhartlivie should also tone down the comments, e.g. "horse hockey" (whatever that means) isn't very helpful. Are you aware of WP:WQA, where editorial clashes like this can be resolved without the threat of admin actions hanging over the involved parties? Please don't post to AN/I any further about each other and get back to discussing whether information from People magazine is appropriate for inclusion in celebrity biographies, getting advice from the BLP and RS noticeboards or an RfC if necessary. Fences&Windows 14:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:WQA, but I'm also aware that nothing will come of posting there except some editors will say "Don't do that, PNT". I've yet to see conflict issues resolved there. What I am posting here about is a series of personal attacks by an editor and I do not see in any way that my posts here have any "tone" to them. I'm stunned that an adminstrator would state clearly "Please don't post to AN/I any further about each other" when I am complaining about a series of severe personal attacks that really need serious attention. Unbelievable. The entire initial point here is that it has been discussed on the Angelina Jolie article to a clear consensus. Moving on to another article and deleting the same content is pointy and inappropriate. But the personal attacks and disparagements included with PNT's conduct toward me really needs administrator attention. It is inappropriate and condescending. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Horse hockey!" was a pseudo-expletive used by Col. Potter in the TV show M*A*S*H, meaning "Nonsense!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If I understand Wildhartlivie's post, this is clearly a WP:NPA issue. As such, I agree that the first report should probably be filed at WP:WQA. Piano no troppo's accusations of dishonesty and stalking were clearly inappropriate, as were his comments on W's personal health issue. Those comments might be best refactored or self-reverted.Smatprt (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I make a large number of edits. For Wildhartlivie to remove an edit in 30 minutes that happens to relate to a content dispute in an unrelated article appears to be stalking.[109] Piano non troppo (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You have nothing to support your suggestion of stalking. Read what constitutes stalking and try to apply it to reverting a pointy content removal by an editor when it shows up on my watchlist. And I'd further note that PNT's personal attacks were repeated on his talk page in response to a post made to him about this. This time he went on to suggest that my stating I have health issues that might interfere with my ability to edit was disparaged with ""I am sick, so can I do whatever I want" scam has been pulled by another editor. That editor, too, continued to edit much as they did before, but now also took self-righteous offense when anybody questioned them." I'd note that one of the edit summaries claimed "Disingenuous use of personal attack claim to win content dispute". The complaint here about his personal attacks is not disengenuous and it has absolutely nothing to do with "winning" anything. The response on Talk:Angelina Jolie was and is not in the air, consensus supported retaining the content, so "winning" is not on the line. I did not use my health as an excuse or reason and this comment is so far from appropriate user conduct that this editor's continuation of attacking me is totally inappropriate and needs to be stopped. Piano non troppo is the one that inappropriately dragged my health into contention and is such bad faith that it is sickening. And apparently administrators don't care to take steps to stop him. Discounting the seriousness of such posts and reluctance to say or do anything is disheartening. 17:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny how many edit wars, arguments, and fights this one particular user seems to get into, isn't it? I wonder when people will figure out the common denominator.—Chowbok ☠ 19:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Smile, referring to me, or her? Piano non troppo (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't noticed you in any edit wars or fights before.—Chowbok ☠ 20:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

And now we hear from my own personal wiki-stalker, who follows me around to post attacks and disparagements on any user talk page where he thinks I'll notice it or where I've posted. Also the editor who created his own personal attack page about me that went to MfD that speculated that everyone I post with and know on Wikipedia were sock puppets of mine. Nice of you to show up to cast more unfounded aspersions, Chowbok. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The behaviour here isn't exactly great all round. The health note on Wildhartlivie's talk page should be read in its entirety as it does not say that she is compromised in anything more than her ability to contribute to Wikipedia in a timely manner. Piano non troppo commented inappropriately on this but appears to regret at least part of the comment made. It's too late to retract and I don't think he aims to do that, but there are traces of good will in some of the subsequent comments and/or edit summaries. Wildhartlivie could perhaps revise her talk page note to be more specific in relation to her vision problems so that this type of comment is not made in future. There seems to be a preference for assuming bad faith rather than good faith that has caused this to fold into accusations of stalking that does nothing but add fuel to the fire. Speaking of adding fuel to the fire, this is not the first time Chowbok has entered a discussion to kick the boot into Wildhartlivie and I wonder when people will figure out that. BilCat, if you have dyslexia and contribute to a project that relies heavily on written expression and spelling, you have to expect people to comment on your edits. They should comment politely, but one way or another you need to be prepared for comments. You should also ensure that you are in the right before you comment. Looking at the edit history of James Garner, Wildhartlivie gave reasons for her edits which you disregarded. We should not be tolerating unsourced or poorly sourced material, and that was the general thrust of Wildhartlivie's edit which you restored with the comment 'better to tag uncited itimes than remove them wholesale'. That's completely the wrong attitude - if you add or restore information to an article it is your responsibility to ensure it's correctly sourced. You failed to take that responsibility. You made the first negative comment with the edit summary 'heavy-handed edits bordering on vandalism'. Most editors don't take kindly to accusations of vandalism and Wildhartlivie left a message on your talk page. It wasn't pleasant, and it was more unpleasant than it needed to be, and I'm not defending it. But it was a reaction to your poor behaviour. Your reply was equally bad. Leaving a message on someone's talk page to say that you're laughing at them is just plain rude, so if you're going to make an issue of Wildhartlivie's behaviour you need to be sure yours is beyond reproach, and it's not. Rossrs (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

access to delete logs

Is it possible for non-admins to request access to Special:DeletedContributions? It would be nice to have access to this information while patrolling new pages especially when researching a username before reporting a user for username violations or vandalism. It would also be nice to see the deletion log for an article to see if it has been the subject of an AFD previously as few articles include this information on their talk pages.--RadioFan (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:VPR not here, but for the record its not going to happen, the foundation's legal counsel has vetoed it--Jac16888^Talk 12:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

See [110]--Jac16888^Talk 12:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats unfortunate, it would be useful information new page patrollers that could be used to make better decision but I get the lawyers getting involved with this as well.--RadioFan (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you go to the page where you would expect the article to be, you should see the deletion log. For example, click Siberian language. You should see the logs of the eight times that the article has been deleted. Of course that's not the same as seeing the deleted revisions themselves, but you can get useful information just from the logs, such as whether it was deleted through AfD or CSD or something else. Also I hope you're not discouraged from ever running RfA in the future just because you have one failed run. Sometimes our best administrators start out that way. —Soap— 13:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of that. It's a bit cumbersome to get to but it does provide the information that is needed to make better decisions. If it's been AFD'd before, the AFD mentions some of the same problems that thecurrent article has, a G4 is likely in order and it doesn't sound like admins have any better information available to them (such as the text of the original article) than you average editor. Also, thanks for the kind words. I learned a lot from that RfA process but more troubling was what I wasn't able to learn. A number administrators simply refused to respond to any questions beyond "if you dont understand now you'll never understand", but there are good admins and bad ones just like anything else. All that aside, I wouldn't turn down a nomination in the future but and am enjoying contributing by identifying the kruft for you folks to weed out. --RadioFan (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin votestacking and stealth canvassing

Resolved

 – it's nice when things work out like this --Jayron32 18:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Christ myth theory has proven to be a very contentious article with many editors being dinged for edit warring and other policy violation. I recently tried to bring the matter before the ArbCom but it was declined as a content dispute. In the midst of that request, though, I asked if it would be appropriate to request additional "eyes on the page" at the Jesus Work Group, a Wikiproject associated with the article. An editor on the "other side" of the dispute, SlimVirgin, requested that I not do this [111] as she felt it would be a form of inappropriate canvassing. I obliged her. But I've recently learned that she herself has not abided by this request.

SlimVirgin initiated a RfC pertaining to the lead of the Christ myth theory article about whether to include a certain quotation [112]. She indicated that she had cross posted the request at both the Wikiprojects History and Religion. But that wasn't the whole truth. She declined to mention that she had also posted the request at Wikiproject Atheism [113]. What makes this so striking is that, at the time she posted her request, the article wasn't even a part of Wikiproject atheism. And while the article was a part of Wikiproject Christianity, she didn't bother to file the request there as well. Well, apparently realizing the difficultly, SlimVirgin quickly added the Wikiproject Atheism tag to the article after the fact [114], but even then she didn't bother to mention on the article's own talk page that she had appealed to that project.

Given that SlimVirgin posted her RfC to Wikiproject Atheism but not Wikiproject Christianity, this seems like a pretty clear-cut case of attempted vote stacking. And given that she never informed the article's editors that she had posted the RfC on that project, it further seems like a subtle case of stealth canvasssing. I've informed SlimVirgin of this incident report [115]. Eugene (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted this RfC on April 18 about the lead of Christ myth theory (the theory that Jesus may not have existed as an historical figure) in a number of places in an effort to attract fresh eyes: Village pump, Wikiproject Religion, Wikiproject Atheism, and Wikiproject Philosophy. That covered the bases: the pump for everyone, then the three wikiprojects for people interested in religion, people interested in opposing religion, and people interested in the philosophy of religion, because the RfC was about whether to add a philosopher of religion to the lead as a source.

It might be worth adding that I posted a request to Eugene five hours ago as part of dispute resolution to tone down his aggressive reactions to other editors. This report appears to be his (entirely non-aggressive) response. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. I was going to submit the AN/I request ever since NMJauthor informed me about the votestacking last evening. But when that came through I was already on my way out the door so I didn't get a chance to respond until this morning. I'm entirely willing to adopt a "less aggressive approach", but we need to all play by the same rules. You seem to disagree about that last point. Eugene (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your explanation about each of the projects History, Philosophy, Religion and Atheism seems fine, and I can see your logic, but I can also see how avoiding the Christianity WikiProject in this case might cause some friction. If an article falls under a WikiProject of a particular religion, perhaps it would be easy to avoid this sort of situation (in the future) by placing a notice at that WikiProject's noticeboard also? In this case, I don't think there would be a problem in resolving the concern if a notice is placed at the Christianity WikiProject. I think that makes sense, but you might disagree, and of course, if I'm missing something, please let me know! Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Hanlon's razor can reliably be invoked here. Rather than assume that SlimVirgin is deliberately avoiding notifying the Christianity WikiProject so they can manipulate the discussion to their favor, we should instead assume that it was a mere oversight; they did notify what could reasonably be regarded as relevent WikiProjects, likely to include people with a wide range of viewpoints. There is no reason for admin involvement here anymore, since anyone can STILL notify the Christianity WikiProject with the same notice used at the other locations, and correct the oversight. Otherwise, there is nothing else to do here. --Jayron32 18:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this also; I seem to have neglected to address Eugene in my comment. Seems that this is resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, on the basis of the discussion here I've added the RfC notice in question to the article's remaining Wikiprojects. Thanks. Eugene (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Vera Baker and WP:GRAPEVINE

Invoking a provision in WP:GRAPEVINE, "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved.", I have fully protected Vera Baker and am now referring myself to ANI to be reviewed by the community. NW (Talk) 17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection seems justified given the urgent BLP concerns, but would blocking the violator(s) not suffice? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The initial use of protection instead of blocking avoids NW appearing to strike against an individual editor if the two of them have a dispute. Maurreen (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

But blocking would tend to piss people off more than simple full-protection (unless obvious disruption warrants blocks, which this clearly isn't the case). –MuZemike 18:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition, it is probable that other editors would add those claims so blocking would not be effective. Cenarium (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I endorsed NW's protection. Maurreen (talk)

• Endorse protection, WP:BLP violations and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Cenarium (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with full protection at this point, at it looks like only one registered account has been involved in adding those claims. Seems to me the better solution would have been to extend the semi-protection and hand out a long block to Onefinalstep (talk · contribs) for edit-warring and BLP violations. In fact, I'm about to block Onefinalstep now. Blueboy96 18:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at his contributions. Up to the 15th of March he had a whole lot of edits where he's removing uncited information from articles and there's even one 4RR warning on his talk page for removing "cited" criticism from Mark Levin. Now he pops up today wanting to insert crap sourced from a supermarket tabloid in another BLP?. This smells. I wonder if he has a little brother. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Process The method used to deal with current event problem by NuclearWarefare NW is an embarrassment. The merits of the story itself have ample questions. See: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005010006. But to lock down the article without any discussion in TALK preceding, then to ask for the article to be deleted is more commentary on the matter than anything. Some does a Google on the name in the news, sees a Wikipedia entry, then see that the article does not make any mention of the news, but shows the article has just been locked down, and then the entire article is being asked to be deleted. Those events sent a clear message to the reader.

I suggest. The article be removed from a request for deletion. That the article make a brief mention of what is going on. Then to have the article locked down for two weeks.

The sentence could be. " On May 1, 2010 the National Enquirer tabloid ran an unsourced a story about an alleged 2004 affair with Barack Obama". --- Locking it down for two weeks from there does not leave the innuendo that this is being rapidly swept under the rug. Lastly she is a political fundraiser by profession, so this type of story is part of the politics that she is expected to deal with...this is politics.

Nuclearwarfare went off half-cocked, which given his alias is the last thing we need. Requesting this article for deletion will be seen as political commentary by Wikipedia itself, there is no reason to do this. Nuclearwarfare seems to just want to delete the news as it is being written, and delete the records. Reflect the events, and lock it down as the events unfold, a small amount of time will quell the problem --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment per discussion in the Causa sui incident of a week or so ago, when an involved admin is in doubt about whether to block someone or protect the page, I think it's better to protect the page and temporarily slow down several editors (there is no deadline) than to block someone and potentially cause a lot of drama. So NW did the right thing, protecting and bringing the issue here, even if uninvolved review concludes it's better to unprotect the page and block specific users. Uninvolved admins should check out the situation independently and take appropriate action (e.g. lift the protection and warn or block disruptive editors as necessary). There was a long thread at WT:BLP about this, that Maurreen may have been remembering. If review concludes that the protection was completely inappropriate and no action was needed, just AGF, unprotect, and let people get back to editing. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, what 69 said. I also was thinking of the Causa sui incident (I don't remember a related BLP thread). Maurreen (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if an administrator intends to open an immediate discussion about their actions and especially when they take an action that must be discussed, there's a lot to be said for taking the path of least drama and fixing things up to match the consensus when there is one. As a side note, Media Matters for America is not a reliable source for anything other than themselves, and of course neither is the National Enquirer - if they are the only source for this material, then of course it's proper to exclude it. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with the concerns of about MediaMatters, but in this specific case they linked to sources which are reliable. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1076695/Obama-hit-affair-smears-following-claims-attractive-aide-banned-wife.html

The take away, is this is an old story, it has been specifically denied by Ms. Baker. This is why I think a simple line addressing the matter, then locking it down for 2 weeks is responsible. As it stand now, it looks like its being swept under the rug. Reliable sources have reported on this matter. It is not just the Enquirer or Drudge. I am very disappointed to find the reference as locked and asked to be entirely deleted. It looks like a duck. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse protection. Due to the serious WP:BLP issues raised by this case, any hint of these rumors should stay off this article in its present poor state of sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be handled vs passing the buck, as it stands the protection and the request for deletion are a disservice to all. There are reliable sources for this, as shown above. Also note that the Ms. Baker commented back to the reporter, which means her remarks were for public consumption, so specifically to this matter it is unquestionable that she is a public figure. There are no BLP issues cased by my recommendation above. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Fully endorse protection per my comments on the talk page.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 02:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hurysz

Additional eyes needed at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hurysz. I am growing weary of playing IP-Whack-a-mole with this guy. Perhaps someone could semiprotect it or something if they think that would be approrpiate. I am becomeing less objective on the need for that right now, as this guy is getting on my last nerve, so someone new should probably assess the situation. Still, the AFD could benefit from some watching given the problems, regardless of whether or not it is semiprotected.--Jayron32 18:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

We could separate the commentary by placing all of it on the AFD's talk page (which is becoming more and more the option for AFD disruption/SPA-flooding like this), or alternatively we can start over with a new deletion discussion. I don't know about semi-protection quite yet; both (yes, only two) two of the IPs have now been blocked. –MuZemike 18:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean three IPs have been blocked... I have blocked all three for clearly being the same person. --Jayron32 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest just ignoring this until closure and then letting the closing admin sort out which IPs are regular contributors and whether any of them are the same person. I'll be glad to close it when the time comes.--Chaser (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated uploading of copyrighted material

131.191.53.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Infrequent contributor, but has continued adding copyrighted material after previous warning. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Previous warning was a month old, new one given. Only edits appear to be unhelpful but there are only five. Not sure that there is any persistent action that requires further effort. If a more immediate further violation takes place a block may be prudent to prevent disruption? SGGH ^ping! 22:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware there was an expiration time for copyvio warnings. I had previously read any copyvio activity after warning was grounds for blocking, e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 74#Copyright blocks. Am I still missing something? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It is just a judgement call. As the discussion you link to mentions, blocking is largely a method of both preventing disruption and showing that we take copyright violations seriously. Disruption prevention doesn't really fit for me given the time between warnings and the total lack of edits, and a second blip after one warning could be a genuine case of idiocy (!) so I am edgy about a sudden block. It's not like persistent edit-war addition. I'm happy for another admin to review, if you'd like. SGGH ^ping! 00:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless it's the exact same copyvio, then I would bank that it's the same person behind the IP. Otherwise, AGF. –MuZemike 00:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you both for your reasoning. So long as this user isn't that active I'm not too worried about them, but I always like hearing from more experienced editors (and maybe I can avoid wasting your time with future cases that don't warrant a block). Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to rush in and block, but I don't think there's any doubt that it's the same editor as a month ago. All the edits pertain to The 39 Clues, even if they are in different articles about the series.—Kww(talk) 05:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Trueman31

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

On the 27, 6 accounts were blocked for being sockpuppets of Trueman31. Trueman31 first appeared on 7 July 2007 [116] and was blocked indefinitely on 3 September 2007 [117]. Since then, they have created many sock accounts ([118]) to vandalise various articles on Wikipedia (I believe most of the articles vandalised are usually EastEnders characters). One of Trueman31's traits while using the new accounts is to copy and paste the talk page of User:AnemoneProjectors to their talk page. He has also copied another user's talk page who reverted some of Trueman31's edits and on that day he decided to copy mine, which I found to be quite disturbing [119].

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

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

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

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

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

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

Initial edit warring complaint

His edit-warring was first raised at WP:AN/EW four days ago: [120]

• 1st revert: [121]
• 2nd revert: [122]
• 3rd revert: [123]
• 4th revert: [124]

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

Diff of edit warring warning: [125]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [126]

Initial vote-stacking/campaigning complaint

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

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

Results of edit warring and wikiquette complaints

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

Nsaum also raised a wikiquette complaint, which has not led to conclusive action: [127]

More recent edit warring

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

1. First revert: [128]
2. Second revert: [129]
3. Third revert: [130]

Diff of additional edit warring warning: [131]

Diffs of additional attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: [132], [133], [134]

More recent canvassing

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

John Z followed his receipt of that note in short order by reverting, but only in slight part: [135]

BLP/Defamation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to note that Jimbo actually did a revert on the article with an edit summary: [136] Stellarkid (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Comment - I agree with Sean.hoyland, BLP's mantra of "do no harm" and "when in doubt" apply here, and it should be excluded from the article until (and if) sources surface that are policy compliant. Furthermore as the editor who filed the Wikietiquette report[137], I think a lot of hard feelings and "drama" could have been avoided had something been done there. It is NEVER proper to use a Wikiproject talk page to "warn" other editors about someone, or air their "dirty laundry"; and the fact that the discussion there continued despite a number of other editors joining in saying it was an improper forum, only helped to fan the flames and cause this dispute to spread to multiple locations. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 07:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Legal threats from User:Draganparis

User Draganparis is obviously not content with just one case running against him, he pushes even more... First he threatened with legal action in the talk pages of two admins here [138] and here [139] and then he even dared post even more threats in the thread of the ANI case against him above[140]!!

His full text reads :

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

and...

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

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

• Well, the fact that he thinks there's such a thing as European defamation law (and his use of "legislations") makes this threat laughable, but still; WP:NLT. Suggest blocks. Ironholds (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeffed for legal threats, as per usual practice. Tim Song (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Move fixing

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

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

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

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

Possible legal threat?

I just noticed an edit summary by 69.154.210.160 that implies that someone will be arrested if they keep posting something. [141] The Thing // Talk // Contribs 06:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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