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 Terra Novus - topic ban may need revision to include other controversial areas

After [1] and then [2] Terra Novus (talk · contribs) was topic banned "from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed". During the discussion at the first link he was asked by an editor "can you stick around and limit yourself to non-controversial articles (nothing remotely related to politics, religion, climate change and environment, etc.) and adhere to the suggestions others have made above re use of talk pages, etc.?". His reply was " I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area.".

Now that editor has posted to my talk page saying that this promise has been breeched. See [3] for his discussion with Terra Novus. It's clear although he may not have broken his topic ban he is still editing problematically: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical liberalism (political parties) which is an article he created which is related to politics (obviously) and he is also editing articles on religion, eg Sabellianism. Ohiostandard, the editor who asked him to stick around but avoid certain subjects, has brought this up on my talk page - he is also concerned with the sources used, saying he "looked at the Sabellianism edits in some detail, and saw some problematic cites. One was to this guy's blog for this post/blog-article. Another was to this "article" on its author's own site. The site-owner has evidently started his own church. I see that the user extensively edited the Trinity article a while back also. I haven't investigated that one but I'd guess that the tendency would be to move it in a direction friendlier to Seventh Day Adventist doctrine, and that it might be a worthwhile project for someone to check the cites used to support the changes." I've reviewed Ohiostandard's comments and agree that there is a continuing problem. I'd like to see the topic ban formally revised to include those subjects he was asked to stay away from (including Economics, see his contribution list). Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is an actual violation of Wikipedia policy that you can cite for me I don't see how my editing these subjects falls under my current topic ban. I will support extending my current ban if I get more of an indication that this is not just related to Wikipedia:Activist clashes on the articles involved. I am happy to cooperatively edit with others on these articles, (I haven't disputed the consensus delete decision on Classical liberalism (political parties)). I remain committed to editing non-controversial subjects, and would be interested in knowing how my current editing behaviour is failing to be in compliance with that agreement--  Novus  Orator  01:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support an enlarged list of topics. But again the continuing problem is that all edits of Terra Novus have to be checked for a variety of issues; that problem does not seem to have been solved by his repeated promises to adhere to a topic ban. I looked at the content and sourcing of Trinity#Judaism. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Terra Novus has not so far understood the purpose of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support formally extending topic ban. This user has repeatedly (barely) escaped a community ban by making very clear and explicit promises that he has completely disregarded subsequently, both in this account and in his previous one. He has been one of our most problematic editors, cumulatively costing other editors literally hundreds of hours of time dealing with his violations. Now he's claiming here that his most recent broken agreement is subject to proof that requiring him to keep it isn't some "activist" conspiracy. ( I love it how that essay is most often quoted by the very type of editor it identifies, without their apparent awareness that it identifies them. )

This very civil but extremely contentious editor has simply defied the community over and over and over, making false promises each time to reform and avoid a community ban. Failure to formally extend and record the topic ban that he already informally agreed to here would just make a mockery of our community enforcement process.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to disclose that I've posted notification of this present thread to the talk pages of the three other admins who commented in the previous AN/I thread where these promises were made. Because I consider this thread as essentially just a continuation of that one, I believe doing so constitutes an allowed notification in this instance.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: We currently have comments from three people who are very familiar with this user's past and present behavior, and who are in favor of formally recording the topic ban he informally agreed to in an attempt to avoid a block or community ban. Besides those having commented here so far, multiple editors previously, including Mann jess, Ncmvocalist, Hans Adler, Mackan79, ResidentAnthropologist, Torchiest, Beyond My Ken, and many others have said things like this editor's last chance came and went some time ago, that a community ban should be enacted, that any additional violations should trigger a community ban or at least a topic ban from all controversial subjects, etc, etc. I'm not aware of even a single editor who has ever disputed or opposed such statements. Apart from the editor himself, is there anyone who thinks that formally recording the topic ban against participation in controversial subjects that was previously agreed to would be unwarranted or unfair?  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Terra Novus' behavior has improved for the most part since the topic ban and I was hoping we might even lift it in few months. This last AFD clearly indicates that Terra novus has not learned. Either Terra Novus' behavior needs to change quick or the way we treat his behavior needs to change. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify that, please? I'm not sure if you're in favor of vacating the topic ban that he's not abiding by anyway, or in favor of recording it?  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been taking a wikibreak due to personal issues, but I've read over the discussion here, and have worked closely with this user in the past, so I'll briefly comment. From his first edit, Terra's contributions have been problematic, almost universally being reverted by a broad array of users in an even broader selection of topics. At this point, it seems like he spends half his time at ANI (or elsewhere) rehashing the same points about the same editing patterns, with no indication whatsoever of improvement. The first time this issue appeared, I devoted months to walking him through policy, helping him work constructively. When that failed, I let others take over, hoping they'd give him the direction he needed. When that failed, I supported giving him another chance if he could simply demonstrate he understood why his editing was problematic. When that failed, I supported a topic ban, which achieved consensus but was never enacted. After 1 or 2 more ANI cases after that, a topic ban was finally enacted, and since then we've seen Terra at ANI unacceptably often, even still.

It's still the case that all his edits need to be scoured over by others, and I don't see any end to that problem. That is simply unreasonable. Extending Terra's topic ban is unlikely to help, since he's seen problems in every topic area he's touched, and furthermore, he's repeatedly breached the terms of his current ban at every apparent opportunity. With that in mind, I regret having to recommend a block or community ban. This user's edits are not a net gain to this project, and I see no way to remedy that. I would happily change my stance if someone could provide any reason to believe that Terra will eventually be able to edit wikipedia (anywhere) without constant supervision. I am, however, dubious that anyone will.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It should also go without saying that I support the current proposal, which is to extend his formal topic ban to include other areas. I think this step is unnecessary, and unlikely to resolve the problem, but if other editors feel differently, then I support giving it a try.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ohio Standard, Terra Novus has shown this pattern of being unable to edit with out disruption in certain topic areas. I dont think widening the scope will have the desried affect in the long run. If he had'nt written a Good article in the mean time I would be up for banning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResidentAnthropologist (talk • contribs) 19:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• The last time I commented, I'd said "If certain types of editing are causing similar issues in other topics, then a topic ban is unlikely to do much good. Unless the Community is willing to put the user on probation (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for examples), or a mentorship thing (which is a timesink), I'm not sure anything short of a ban or indef block would be able to address such a situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)". I think this is what Ohiostandard refers to when he mentions me above. I think my comment still applies today. Also, Jess's comments above are pretty compelling as to the emerging pattern here. Accordingly, I share Jess's support and reservations about the proposal if people think it will work, but I still see the ultimate resolution in this case being an indef or site ban, and it may just be time to cut our losses. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• So far I'm getting the idea that Religion, Politics and Psuedoscience are areas that the community feels I should avoid. I agree. I hope that my recent editing behavior has been largely constructive, but I understand that these topics in particular are just not good for me to edit. If the community feels that my presence in Wikipedia is no longer warranted I will abide by their decision. I have unfortunately had a tendency for contentious editing, and I appreciate the efforts that the community has made to get me on the right path. I edited in good faith, but obviously not with good tact.--  Novus  Orator  06:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• That ship sailed a long time ago. You agreed to avoid those areas, and all controversial areas entirely, and then utterly ignored your promise despite multiple requests to honor it. The only question at this juncture is whether to formally record a topic ban, or whether to proceed with an indef or site ban. The question is, in a nutshell, whether the community is willing to give you yet another last chance.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposals (extended topic ban or community ban)

Extended topic ban

Terra Novus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from "from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed" and from all controversial articles and discussions including but not confined to those related to politics, religion, climate change and the environment.

• Support Although I am still concerned about his ability to avoid the problems that he has had in the past, his comments above persuade me to give him one last chance. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support per what I said above at 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC) and per Dougweller; one last chance. First choice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Wrote a well researched "Good Article" has potential but gets hopelessly unconstructive in other areas. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support subject to review. Mathsci (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I support the idea here, but in a post to his talk page (link/permalink) I've asked Doug whether he'd make the language of this proposal more specific and explicit.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose A draconian solution which is not going to help Wikipedia, and would intrinsically set an extraordinarily bad precedent. I did not see him editing any articles reasonably under his restrictions, which means the restrictions worked. Extending it to all political, religious, environment and economic articles <g> is an absurd over-reach. Hit him idf he violates the actual restrictions - but extending them like this is improper. Collect (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support as the mildest of the available options at this point, since it merely records what TN agreed to previously, but did not abide by, when faced with a site ban previously. Unequivocally a last chance. (First choice.)  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support proposal, at a minimum. I would like to see the user contribute constructively, and if other editors are willing to scour all his contributions, and he is willing to broadly avoid all controversial areas, then I'm willing to see him have another chance. Based on prior behavior, I have little confidence this method will work, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support a strictly worded topic ban. This has already taken up too much of the community's time. LK (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Site ban

Terra Novus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely site banned.

• Support per what I said above at 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC). Second choice (to allow one last chance via extended topic ban). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I really cant support this at this time. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment If problems recur, then this alternative should be discussed. Mathsci (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Even worse proposal than above. Collect (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support as second choice.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support per comments above. Previous topic bans haven't remedied the issue, nor has the user's behavior changed when confronted with them. Based on past behavior, I don't see another option likely to be effective; Lots of "last chances" have already been given. I'm equally supportive of the first two proposals.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Dealing with Terra Novus is a big challenge for Wikipedia. The whole point of Wikipedia is that everyone can edit it, but obviously not everyone is an ideal editor and some are quite difficult to deal with. This means that we should think about new measures first that can accommodate for such editors. Count Iblis (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

0RR restriction

*Support. You can just impose a 0RR restriction with the understanding that inappropriate talk page comments may also be removed. If you can't revert, you are likely to become more careful about what others will tolerate, thereby promoting good behavior. Topic bans can lead to the opposite dynamic, because the editor is then not confronted with the problem he has editing Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per the comments below, this likely won't work. Count Iblis (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We need an actual reason to impose such onerous restrictions - ArbCom rarely goes below 1RR at worst -- making this more onerous because we do not like an editor makes zero sense. Collect (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any investigation into the history of this will demonstrate the need for a very decided response in this case, but based on what we've all seen in the past I would anticipate long arguments about what constitutes a revert were this alternative to be enacted. Since there have been numerous debates on the various boards over the exact definition of that term, and since they've all failed, I can't support this alternative.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't see how this is going to be a problem in practice. If it is not clear that an edit by him is a revert, then others can just revert his edit and then that issue will be settled. He obviously can't then revert anymore. Also, I included the clause that editors are allowed to delete or archive his talk page comments. Reverting that would obviously be a violation of 0RR. If there is anything controversial about such a deletion, it can be discussed by other editors. Count Iblis (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Part of Terra's problem has been adding inappropriate content to articles, and then being "cordial" about working with others to refine it. In doing so, he contributes a large quantity of different content, and then spends exorbitant amounts of time discussing it on talk pages, all the while only superficially listening to input. This is not a case of edit warring, but instead, he's repeatedly hitting the same editing problem with different content across different articles. This proposal doesn't address that behavior. Terra's problem never was discussing changes. Largely, it's been listening to input, abiding by consensus and policy, and learning from mistakes.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship

• Terra Novus will be allowed to edit under the following restriction. By default, Terra Novus is topic banned from editing Wikipedia, except his own user pages. If he wishes to edit an article, he discusses that first with one of his mentors there. Terra Novus can then edit the article if the mentor agrees. The mentor can impose restrictions on Terra Novus for that article, like e.g. 0RR or 1RR. Also, the mentor can delegate mentoring as far as editing a particular article is concerned, to another editor. The primary or secondary mentors may be involved in the articles Terra Novus is editing. After a year of editing under this restriction, Terra Novus may appeal to get the restriction lifted or modified.

• Support. Reading more about the problem here, I think one needs to implement a restriction along these lines, basically the same as I proposed for GoRight, see here. Count Iblis (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sarah777 Unblock request on her talk page

• Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since it has been discussed here over the last few week I thought this page should be notified.

For the record I support her proposed unblocking, with one caveat, that the topic ban should be Anything relating to Anglo-Irish relations and the naming dispute of the British Isles broadly constructed, and specificity the articles (and one template) British Isles naming dispute, British Isles, Template:British Isles, United Kingdom, Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Great Britain should be included to avoid any doubt and her mentor should be allowed to add any more at his/hers discretion. Mtking (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Accept mentorship and support unblock per above conditions. Could Sarah possibly clarify whether she is seeking an immediate unblock (ie time served), or the month block she also mentions, which would be June 9 or thereabouts? --John (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I have been uninvolved in this dispute entirely up until this point, but I am highly concerned about the statement in her unblock request which states "Given the history of Ireland v England etc it is hard for someone English to be neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists." Painting the entire citizenry of a country as large as England with such broad strokes and treating the "English" as a monolithic, anti-Irish people is exactly what got her into trouble in the first place, and the fact that her unblock request contains a dig at the inability of anyone English to edit neutrally regarding Irish nationalism seems to me to show that she has no desire to change her ways. Indeed, if she can't avoid commenting on the English in negative ways even long enough to make a simple unblock request, I don't hold out hope for the change in her demeanor necessary for reintegration to the Wikipedia community. I'm not going to place a bold !vote here, but I am very concerned that she has not learned her lesson. --Jayron32 02:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I must comment here before this gets any further hyperbole added. I read the statement differently Jayron; to say it is difficult for an English person to be neutral about Irish nationalists in light of the implied reference to the Troubles and earlier conflicts is not prima facie as you wrote "treating the 'English' as a monolithic, anti-Irish people" at all. It simply acknowledges that neutrality, one way or the other, is difficult to maintain in discussions regarding the two countries together among persons on either side. Your characterization of her calm observation of the situation as overly prejudiced and judgemental is exaggeration. Sswonk (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality is difficult to maintain in articles about nationalist conflicts, on all sides. The fact that she singles out the English as being the problem is the issue here, and it is an issue because of her prior background. Every person does not get to start every day of their lives as a tabula rasa. She has a history that must be considered when trying to understand her statements. I'm an American of French Canadian and Blackfoot ancestry, I have no horse in this race, and I have never commented on nor been involved in any meaningful editing or discussion on the topic at hand. But she is not any random person making a random statement on the difficulty of editing in nationalist debates. She a specific person with a specific history of making specifically inflamatory statements about a specific group of people (the English) and that her unblock request itself makes another statement about "The English" specifically is a specific cause for specific concern in this specific case. The fact that she has a history of being unable to avoid making derogatory comments about the English means that statements she makes about the English needs to be understood in the history of her prior behavior here at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 03:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In nearly all contexts past and current her beef has been with the acts of the British Empire, not with the current population of English people. That is why I mentioned that your reaction seems exaggerated, what you are writing is not what she meant. The statement that garnered the most attention before was about the application of the concept of being a "British Isle" in light of the history of famine, plantations and so on that is widely remembered in Ireland. She spoke specifically about the word "British" in that context, not about people. That situation is kind of like the fight against flying the Confederate battle flag over the SC state house that was fought by the NAACP and others, but not really comparable just reminiscent of the types of long held resentments that were evident in the US South where rebel symbols were used. The Anglo-Irish situation can and will be resolved, the visit by Queen Elizabeth certainly has been an encouraging sign of the prospects for reconciliation. At any rate, I still submit that you are misconstruing her words, I do not see anything like "she singles out the English as being the problem"; rather she acknowledges that as many others have here her block, described as "infinite" by the admin, has some issues when it is made by someone who prominently displays the English flag on his page. I don't see that as an indictment of or a "singling out of" all people English, but a statement in appeal to others to not judge her as she felt she was at the time the "infinite" block was made. I and others successfully argued that she was not to be characterized as a "racist" in the block log summary. Surely John has advised properly that she might consider NOTTHEM, I just hope to explain to you that again, she is being misunderstood and is not a one-dimesnsional bigotted, hateful person as that blocking statement seemed to say. Nothing like it, in fact. Sswonk (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, yeah. You'll find that I already pre-agreed with you there; which is why I was the one who changed the blocking statement to remove the word "racism" from it. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive694#Sarah777_log_entry_reason for some background and check the block logs (Floquenbeam later changed my change accidentally, not because he disagreed with me but because he essentially edit conflicted with me). So don't tell me that I am treating her as a one-dimensional, bigotted, hateful person as noted in the first blocking statment since I was the one who changed it to remove the word. Before you tell me that I hold an opinion, could you let me know so I can actually hold it before you give it to me? That would be great. In the future, please become informed with the details before you accuse someone of the exact opposite of what they have actually done. --Jayron32 04:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is another example of what I am still concerned about, which is that you seem to make negative assumptions about people fairly quickly. Not only, Jayron, did I know that you had been the first to alter the statement, I also know the rest of what you are trying to lecture me about. Nevertheless, I am somehow ignorant and accusing? I need you to shout in bold letters at me that I don't know the history of this sorry case? Your change was from "racism" to "nationalism", please point out to me exactly how simply being nationalist is blockable. I am repeating, there is a distinct and important difference between "she singles out the English as being the problem" and what she wrote. "The English are the problem" is not what she wrote. To me, it was more like, "I don't think a block against me which used such hyperbolic terms as "racism" and "infinite" came from someone with a neutral stance, and given the history between the countries it is understandable this person is not demonstrating complete neutrality with those exaggerant words." Several other people have noticed the same disconcerting and obvious facts, and some implied that a block by a non-English person who wrote calmly would have held much more water. How you or anyone can write things like "Painting the entire citizenry of a country as large as England with such broad strokes and treating the 'English' as a monolithic, anti-Irish people" equals what Sarah777 wrote in her unblock request, and then in the same thread claim you are under attack by me when all I did was point out your characterization is a fairly substantial exaggeration of what she wrote, escapes me. I am not interested in making people lose their temper. If that is what the truth does to you, there is nothing more that can be said which would make me interested in discussing this with you Jayron. It is as kneejerk as the original block summary to paint me as accusing you of anything, I did not "tell (you) that (you are) treating her as a one-dimensional, bigotted, hateful person", but that I don't want anyone else to do that based on what you already misrepresented above. Please for your sake read and read and re-read what I wrote so you can see that I do not want exaggeration and misunderstanding of words to be accelerated here. Period. I will leave it to some of your colleagues to get you straight on that, I am done. Sswonk (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider myself highly sympathetic to Sarah's position, but I read her response exactly as Jayron32 and I agree with his assessment and share his concerns. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• • I take the point. I would argue that HJM's block gave an appearance of possible bias, but per NOTTHEM Sarah's unblock request should mainly concern her own behavior, something she has clearly made efforts to do. I think I would favor her serving the month's block then returning under mentorship and editing restrictions. I've made a request at her talk that she refactor the block request. --John (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) I agree as a non-involved user. If she's unblocked, the topic ban should be "Anything relating to the United Kingdom and its constituent countries, the Republic of Ireland, or the British Isles in any way whatsoever, broadly construed". Let her write about African heads of state or cheese or automobiles; she's a very good writer and there are many topics that could use her talents. --NellieBly (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The scope of the topic ban would need to be more precisely delineated than "in any way whatsoever, broadly construed". Otherwise, there will be arguments over whether particularly expansive interpretations are appropriate, such as the claim that the ban extends to the United States as a former British colony, or China because of the Opium Wars, or the Hong Kong situation. Chester Markel (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What of the proposed editing of automobile articles? I assume that fully British brands such as Jaguar or Rolls Royce would be covered by the ban. What of an article about an American or Japanese manufacturer that discusses its sales in the UK? Is the entire article off limits, or just the portion about that particular market? Chester Markel (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the article on Omega SA? While the company is Swiss, it mentions that Omega watches were worn by James Bond, a fictional British agent. Chester Markel (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that a limit on "Anything relating to the United Kingdom and its constituent countries, the Republic of Ireland, or the British Isles in any way whatsoever, broadly construed" would probably be to broad and over restrictive. Sarah777 should be free to edit on areas where any feelings she may have towards Britain will not be tested. Areas that should be off-limits imo should be "Anything relating to Anglo-Irish relations and the naming dispute of the British Isles broadly constructed" with the added restriction on the named pages (inc talk and project pages) above and any others that her mentor feels appropriate to add. Mtking (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also recommend that any unblock includes an undertaking to not comment (good, bad or indifferent) on the nationality of any editor or group of editors; nor to characterise any edit as being motivated or otherwise influenced by race. While she has come out with some undeniably racist statements in the past, I think her main problem in this area is that she doesn't seem to understand which statements will cause offence. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with Sarah777 so I can't rule out that she has made "undeniably racist statements in the past". However, in the present situation there have been no such statements, and the accusation is a pretty damning one. Per WP:NPA#WHATIS ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.") I must ask you to provide diffs. Hans Adler 17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

For evidence of previous racist statements please see the large number of diffs discussed at length in the several previous discussions about Sarah777. Those comments are in the past and have all been dealt with at the time. I am explicitly not making any new allegations against her, because she has not made any recent racist comments that I have seen. This was the point I was making. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Vague pointing to past discussions will not do in this case. I searched the AN archives for "Sarah777" and "racist", and could not find anything relevant. Given that in this case she has been accused of racism for the flimsiest of reasons, it appears necessary to be very careful. You may have noticed that I have not !voted below. It is important to me whether Sarah777 is actually a racist, or whether this is yet another case of British or Irish editors being unable to distinguish between nationalism in the Anglo-Irish conflict and racism. A racist is historically someone who believes there are distinct human "races"; in the modern sense the term also implies the belief that some such races are in some sense superior to others. Which "races" has Sarah777 distinguished, and which does she consider superior or inferior? Hans Adler 19:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

While what you describe is definitely racism, as has was discussed recently (although not necessarily on this page), "racism" is also in modern usage applied to nationalities as well as just "races" and splitting the two was last time described as "wikilawyering" (although not by me, I agree with the sentiment). When one person engages in behaviour or speech that is excessively nationalist and denigrating to the Irish that is rightly described as racism, and so is the same when the target is any other nationality or race, including the British. If there is a term in common usage in contemporary British English that describes the same behaviours as racism against race as applied to nationality then I am not aware of it. It is this latter in which Sarah has previously engaged in. Relevant diffs are in previous discussions, where they were relevant. They are not relevant now as this discussion is regarding whether, and if so under what conditions, Sarah should be allowed to return to editing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am seriously furious about this response. While I strongly disapprove of both nationalism and racism, there is still a huge fucking difference between them, and referring to over-the-top anti British rhetorics by an Irish editor as "undeniably racist statements" is not much better than the nationalist rhetorics itself. Yes, you are right about what this discussion should be about. Into this discussion you have introduced a serious accusation to which you declined to provide concrete evidence, and now you have admitted that you can't provide evidence because it's not actually true. The word undeniable was a lie, apparently, because most people would deny, and for good reasons, that anti-British sentiments by Irish people are a form of racism. It was seriously misleading: Up to this response I seriously considered the possibility that Sarah777 is actually a racist and I just missed it. I guess I could now call you a racist for considering British and Irish people to be different races (as Sarah777 denies that they are different races the idea must be yours)? And I guess it would be wikilawyering to insist that I stop? Hans Adler 23:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is splitting hairs. In many European jurisdictions (including the UK) no distinction is made between discrimation and "hate speech" (to use an American term) on the grounds of "race" and on the grounds of national origin. They all come under the heading of incitement to racial hatred or race discrimination, both of which can be translated from the legal to layman terms as "racism". The lack of distinction of the two is for many reasons, one of them being that the term "race" has no agreed meaning, and is often considered a discredited concept in itself. To disparage an entire nationality is racism in this sense. I suspect the U.S. has a different concept, and seems more concerned with defining "race". To describe Sarah's comments as racist is therefore reasonable, although I accept it is also reasonable to say they are not racist by other definitions. DeCausa (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This response is so stupid that it almost left me speechless. For discrimination laws in the UK, see List of anti-discrimination acts#United Kingdom. For hate speech laws in the UK, see Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom. If you actually follow the links, you will see that the latter are a subset of the former. Even if you meant "race discrimination" it's still two different though related things. And both of them are different from, though related to, nationalism and racism, so it's not even clear why you felt the need to bring them up. Here is a very simple exercise. Associate the example sentences with the correct characterisation:

(A) "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." (B) "According to your resume you grew up bilingually in English and Spanish. Unfortunately this does not fit into our company philosophy, which is to use the English language exclusively." (C) "I hate Canadians because they are all liberal atheist bastards with no respect for our flag." (D) "In terms of intelligence, the Jew is comparable to the Ukrainian, which makes him more dangerous than the nigger."

(1) Nationalism. (2) Racism. (3) Hate speech. (4) Discrimination.

Only a moron could get any of these associations wrong. This is as elementary as distinguishing between houses, tents and camping vans. Hans Adler 00:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I could be annoyed by you calling me a moron but your post is so idiotic it's more funny than anything. The issue is not the consequence of the categorisation (discrimination, "hate speeach" etc) it's the lack of distinction between "race" and national identity prior considering the complained of act. I don't need to look up the WP articles you cite - it's my day job. Before touching the key board you need to get a better understanding of the subject. DeCausa (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you really claiming you can't do this simple exercise? Presumably I must believe you now that the UK legal system is conflating these four different terms because you say you are an expert. But how far does this go? Suppose you got William Wolfe as a client because someone persistently called him a racist. Would you tell him he doesn't have much of a chance in court because everybody knows he is a member of a nationalist party? Here we are not in a British court of law, arguing highly technical legal points. (The Race Relations Act specifically defines the term "racial group" as "colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins". This is a legal definition and far broader than the natural language meaning of the term. It does not define "racist" and "racism", but instead uses less common word combinations such as "racial discrimination", to which it also gives unnaturally broad – from a natural language POV – definitions.) Here if someone writes that someone else is a racist, the majority of readers will understand it as saying that the person distinguishes between human "races" and discriminates or hates on that basis. I would not want to work in a project in which it is considered OK to label Irish nationalists individually as racists without making it clear that one is using hyperbole, in the same way that nobody should be allowed to label a specific editor as a Nazi for parading the English flag on his or her user page. And in the context of a ban discussion about a user who cannot defend herself because she is currently blocked this is particularly egregious. Hans Adler 15:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My God, I think you've only now just got my original point: "This is splitting hairs. In many European jurisdictions (including the UK) no distinction is made between discrimation and "hate speech" (to use an American term) on the grounds of "race" and on the grounds of national origin." You don't like it; you think that's not what "people" think racism is. I don't agree and the evidence I gave is how this is treated in law in UK (and most of Europe). I'm done here. And next time you think to call another editor a moron make sure you've understood the point first. DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Care to support your contention by quoting a dictionary? None of those I consulted, and I consulted a lot of dictionaries and encyclopedias, even mentions a generally accepted use of "racism" for prejudice, hatred or discrimination of any kind other than that related to race. The term has come under attack as being hard to demarcate (from the Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology: "In recent international discussions, for example at the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerances in 2001 in Durban, South Africa, it has become increasingly clear that 'racism' often includes extra-racial factors. In sociology, where the distinction between race and ethnicity is uncertain, it is best to limit “racism” to structures in which race is explicitly used to effect social domination."), but that doesn't mean it's suddenly OK to apply it to situations where it clearly doesn't fit. Hans Adler 07:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to argue over semantics on your own Talk pages. This bickering isn't helping here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It would have been entirely sufficient if Thryduulf had simply withdrawn the baseless and surprising personal attack ("has come out with some undeniably racist statements in the past") instead of trying to defend this lie as somehow justified because, apparently, robbery is just a normal synonym for theft arson is just a normal synonym for mischief racism is just a normal synonym for nationalism. If Thryduulf redacts the personal attack, then as far as I am concerned this digression can be removed or hatted. Hans Adler 06:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose her request. Her apology is limited to "the Nazi flag/union flag comparison" and "the pointy edits made on the contentious BI naming dispute". She doesn't apologize for her other crude anti-British remarks made at the time, which is what really got her into trouble in the first place. It seems to me this is either half-hearted or she's missed the point. She then adds "given the history of Ireland v England etc it is hard for someone English to be neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists", which confirms she's not going to change IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Rules for Sarah - WP:TL;DR on the rest of the commentary above (sorry; I've read other threads before) - but if the editor is unblocked, I stipulate that she must submit to ban on anything to do with The Troubles. The comments made by her were flatly unacceptable. She was entirely manic concerning the subject (I have Irish blood in me, but seriously, can we chill out a bit? The whole thing is bad enough to make Polandball cringe). Additionally, Sarah must not ever mention the citizenship/nationality of another editor if it is either British, Irish, or somehow related. She must not speak derisively of the citizenship of any subject whatsoever, broadly construed. She must not bring her battleground to Wikipedia, broadly construed, enforceable as a block by any non-involved admin (and not to be overturned without significant community consensus). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock Sarah has given assurances and has apologised for her transgression also the mentorship by John who is an admin in good standing can only be a plus to the project as Sarah has made thousands of good edits on articles not related to The Troubles. Mo ainm~Talk 09:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock, with the restrictions already described, and a great mentor. I think Sarah is a productive editor with positive intentions, but is (justifiably) angry about the way her people were treated by Britain in the past, and sometimes that anger has spilled over in some places and some ways in which into Wikipedia editing, where it is not justified. Regarding the comment about it being difficult for the English to understand the way Irish nationalists feel be properly neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists, I did not read that as an attack on HJ himself. And though extending it to all English was too much of a generalization, I think it is at least in large part correct - most English, at least, most I've discussed the issue with, don't seem to me to really understand Irish nationalist feeling (and that's not any denigration of them - it's something that can't really be grokked unless you're close to it, and we did get decades of one-sided media coverage about "The Troubles" in England). As a disclaimer, I'm part English and part Irish, with family in N Ireland, and I have both unionists and republicans amongst my friends (though none is strongly in either camp - most just seem to want some kind of peaceful life) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC) (edited to correct my representation of Sarah's statement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC))(editied again, for clarity -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC))

The pages and disputes that have got her into trouble recently are not about history, but about naming issues, that essentially revolve round COMMONNAME etc, and trying to balance worldwide naming in English with the particular concerns of some Irish Nationalsts. Encouraging her to bring her "anger" into these matters is not helpful at all, not that she needs any encouragement. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything remotely like that, I'm saying exactly the opposite - that bringing real-life anger to Wikipedia editing is *not* justified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified, above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• What if any are the conditions of her unblock? they need to be clearly laid out here before users can comment - personally imo her presence in any English, Northern Ireland, Great Britain or United kingdom associated article only adds to the battlefield mentality and she should be edit restricted from any of those articles. note' - Irrespective of this discussion and any additional conditions imposed here. Sarah is already indefinitely banned from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, including all its sub pages and talk pages, for this [4] (and surrounding sequence of edits), and from British Isles and its talk page for this [5][6], which was pure POV trolling and baiting. Additionally, for the persistent pattern of battleground rhetorics and hate speech displayed in edits like this - and blocked for one month[ from Template:British English for one month. diff. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Although the unblock request contains exactly the sort of attitude (albeit toned down) that got her blocked... topic ban & John as a mentor get the thumbs up from me. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the conditions - topic ban should be Anything relating to Anglo-Irish relations and the naming dispute of the British Isles broadly constructed, and specificity the articles (and one template) British Isles naming dispute, British Isles, Template:British Isles, United Kingdom, Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Great Britain and John as a mentor. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock but also agree that the conditions must specifically include the current indefinite bans as well as the specific areas mentioned by off2riorob (even if they overlap). Without that I don't agree to the unblock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Not opposed to unblock as long as the topic bans are strictly enforced. (I'm not saying "support" because I'm unwilling to go that far, but this may be taken as a non-objecting opinion.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• As far as the fist unblock request goes, the backhanded attack on HJM shows she still doesn't get it. The broad brush attack on the 'the English' shows she still doesn't get it. Her personal/political prejudices are irrelevant, nobody here is interested in them and nobody has to be subjected to them. It's not her playground frankly. She needs to state clearly and without ambiguity that she accepts as a truism that on Wikipedia, having a particular nationality does not mean you are incapable of making neutral admin actions, or of writing neutrally about any topic. This has been her problem forever frankly - a complete misunderstanding of the whole concept of 'writing from the NPOV'. Her beliefs would disqualify even Jimbo from contributing to an Irish article (he once said that if he hadn't been born American he would have liked to have been British). Also, on the whole issue of a topic ban - check, and double check, the proposed wording. Her suggestion of "anything that comes under the Troubles" is completely insufficient - she is the person who once even turned the issue of how we disambiguate Irish and British road articles into an alleged part of the anti-Irish Wikipedia conspiracy, flinging out all the usual attacks and smears. I suggest any restrictions be focused on simply the issues of undesirable behaviour, not just banning her from certain topic areas (although that also will clearly be necessary for several basic article sets). As she notes though, she doesn't tend to edit much outside of Irish geography, so a 'broadly contrued' topic ban on Irish topics would simply be a complete ban from Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I would have supported an unblock under strict conditions (topic banned from everything to do with Britain, Ireland, British Isles, British Empire widely construed) but I cannot support unblocking a user whose own unblock request should've resulted in her talk page access being revoked. User:Sarah777 was blocked and topic banned from anti-British remarks. Her block was extended indefinitely because she made further personalized anti-British remarks. And now her original unblock request[7] repeats the same behaviour. Sarah777 has had years to learn how to communicate civilly and appropriately, and I see no benefit to community in unblocking Sarah777 until she recognizes that behaviour as unacceptable herself--Cailil ^talk 21:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I think she has done, or else I would not have supported the conditional unblock (ie a return to the status quo before HJMitchell's inflammatory block). I also think it's a little disingenuous of you (or did you genuinely not notice?) to talk about Sarah's original unblock request with the adjective "now" when it was made at 01:38, 21 May 2011, your post was made at 21:02, 21 May 2011, and yet at 15:59 Sarah had responded to my request to refactor her unblock request. So, let me get it straight. You are opposing unblock because you didn't like a post that she has already refactored, thus implicitly recognizing that it was inappropriate, right? I would disagree with this, as blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. If you feel that she deserves punishment nonetheless, perhaps this will be assuaged by her submitting to a month block, indefinite topic ban and mentorship? --John (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • We are beyond the stage of implicit acknowledgement of her past failings and future obligations. She needs to be explicit on both. Even refactored, her current request leaves a lot to be desired in that regard, aswell as in the specifics like the boundaries of this topic ban which she seems to think would only be "anything that comes under the Troubles". As I said above, this leaves questions like for example does this prevent a recurrance of her past misbehaviour in completely tangential areas such as road article naming? The last thing we need is a situation where she starts making some edits in an area she sees as completely uncontroversial and nothing to do with her definition of the Troubles (and thus, not pausing to clear it with you as the proposed mentor), and someone else reports her. The ensuing 50 pages of wikilawyering and accusation/counter-accusation is the exact kind of Sarah777 centric nationalist drama we do not need frankly, and which is what HJM was trying to put a full stop on due to her past record showing that no, she's not going to change. He's not daft, he knows he cannot impose 'infinite' blocks, but he also deserves the basic respect of having his concerns properly, and crucially explicitly, addressed, before anyone else unblocks her. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • John don't mis-understand me, I am not outright 'opposing' but I cannot support an unblock request from Sarah777 that she needed to be told should be refactored. She has had 4 years to get the point about incivility in general and anti-British remarks specifically. Maybe I'm being a bit of a wonk here but in my view under the Fameine RfAr ruling on Sarah777's conduct her talk page access should have been revoked and the request declined because of that. But I'm not going to labour the point - I'm certain she will be been unblocked conditionally here, but I wont support requests from Sarah777 that are anything less than explicit (from their very first posting) in evidencing that she's 'got it'--Cailil ^talk 15:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Unblock I have been reading Wikipedia a lot longer than I have editing it. In the early days one source of constant amusement were the low level hoaxes and "in-jokes" weaved into many articles on towns & villages in Ireland. I noted that it was User:Sarah777 dilligently clearing these up time after time. It would take a lot of convincing that this editor is not an asset to the project, although by the same token I'm sure she wont be missed on the handful of articles mentioned above (...sorry Sarah). Since User:Sarah777 made her comments, the Queen has laid a wreath and bowed her head at the Garden of Remembrance, a memorial garden in Dublin dedicated to the memory of "all those who gave their lives in the cause of Irish Freedom". I am sure everyone will lighten up in the future. MacStep (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Sarah777 (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to the following conditions:

• Sarah agrees to work with a mentor
• Sarah is topic-banned from the following areas:
  • The Troubles
  • Ireland
  • United Kindgom
  • England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland
  • The history and politics of the aforementioned countries
  • All topics occurring in, on, or around the group of islands off the coast of Northwest Europe

    Note: Common sense applies; a violation of this particular restriction will be handled via a warning first, as it is somewhat open to interpretation.

  • The dispute regarding the geographic name of said islands
• Sarah makes changes to her own behavior to reduce the battleground environment
• Sarah ensures all her editing is conducted in line with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF

Sarah is reminded that she will be under intense scrutiny by the community, and her behavior now will determine when and if she is allowed to return to editing the aforementioned topics. Sarah may be blocked by any administrator should she violate these restrictions, with the length of said block left to their discretion. Sarah will note her agreement to these terms prior to the removal of the block, and her mentor will note his/her agreement to mentor Sarah prior to the unblock being initiated.

Comments

• Proposed N419BH 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Needs tweaking in several areas. Topic banning her from "Ireland" broadly construed is, as has been pointed out above, effectively equal to banning her, and history isn't really where she's had the issues. See my alternative proposal below. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal for Sarah777

Sarah777 (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to the following conditions

1. Sarah agrees to work with a mentor
   • Sarah is free to change mentors subject to the agreement of both mentors. Any change in mentor should be clearly announced on Sarah's user or user talk page and on WP:AN/I.
2. Sarah is indefinitely topic banned the following articles pages: ["articles" changed to "pages" 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
   • British Isles
   • British Isles naming dispute
   • England
   • Great Britain
   • Ireland
   • Northern Ireland
   • Republic of Ireland [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
   • Scotland
   • The Troubles
   • Wales
   • United Kingdom
   • Template:British Isles [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
3. Sarah's mentor may add such pages to this list as they deem required. All such additions must be clearly announced on Sarah's user or user talk page [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
4. Sarah is also indefinitely banned from the following topics, broadly construed:
   • Anglo-Irish relations
   • The naming of the group of islands comprising the islands of Britain, Ireland and geographically and politically associated smaller islands.
   • The political status of the islands in the group collectively or individually
   • Irish nationalism
5. Sarah ensures all her editing is in accordance with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and explicitly agrees not to engage in battleground behaviour
6. Sarah agrees not to comment on the nationality or race of any other editor
7. Sarah agrees not to comment on any perceived national or nationalist motive for any edit.

Sarah is reminded that she will be under intense scrutiny by the community, and her behavior now will determine when and if she is allowed to return to editing the aforementioned topics. Sarah may be blocked by any administrator should she violate these restrictions, with the length of said block left to their discretion. Sarah will note her agreement to these terms prior to the removal of the block, and her mentor will note his/her agreement to mentor Sarah prior to the unblock being initiated.

All editors are reminded that the pages and topic areas listed above may become contentious and are cautioned that standards of civility and policies regarding assumptions of good faith and no personal attacks will be strongly enforced. All editors are further reminded that civility is a two-way street and any and all behaviours that are seen as "baiting" another user to break rules will be dealt with firmly, up to and including by long-term blocks in cases of repeat or egregious cases. [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]

Comments (alternative proposal for Sarah777)

• Proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'd be more in favor of a broader restriction and then slowly chip away at it as she shows a willingness to edit in accordance with policy, but this one might work, as civility is the primary issue, and she seems to get into civility issues on the topics listed here. My concern with allowing her to edit such things as Irish roads is she'll use them as a platform to get in digs against the topic-banned areas, and additionally other editors might bait her into violating her restrictions, either intentionally or unintentionally. Hence I would prefer to remove her from the entire topic area. If she can focus on her own behavior she has a chance, if not I suspect she is close to exhausting community patience. N419BH 18:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I debated including something about the naming of articles where there were similarly or identically named articles in the UK and Ireland (which was the issue I saw with regards roads) but couldn't come up with any decent wording. I wouldn't object to adding that in if you can come up with something suitable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I would like to see two changes before I could support :

• Republic of Ireland and Template:British Isles to be added to the band list of articles.
• The mentor could add any other articles they see fit to the list of band articles at any time.

Mtking (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree with them and have added them above, making a couple of other minor consequential changes, all clearly marked. I've also added a paragraph at the bottom that is intended to incorporate the sentiments of the #Community context section below. It might be of benefit to develop a template (a specific version of the contentious topic template perhaps?) with a similar note and place it on the talk pages of the relevant articles? Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - Support Mtking (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Community context

We've been here done that with Sarah already. On 27 May 2008, Sarah was blocked indefinitely for similar issues. She was unblocked on that occasion (after a similar period to now) after after promising to undergo mentorship. Despite this, it was necessary for the community to employ topic ban restrictionsfor any article that Sarah "disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks." Now, there we have the latest fuss. Her behavior means that she has lost the confidence of the community. For this reason, she should be indefinitely topic-banned from areas where is cannot collaborate with others.

For those reasons, I propose the following for Sarah:

• Two-month block (from the date of the original block);
• Indefinite civility mentorship;
• Indefinite topic-ban from British-Irish and Troubles-related articles

However, Sarah's behaviour is not unique. There is a common thread of incivility and nationalist name calling on British- and Irish-related article. Addressing Sarah alone demonises her but does not address the wider culture of incivility and of dividing editors in to nationalist camps. It is that culture that escalates to the kind of behavior we have seen from Sarah. The community needs to take action on that culture and a decision on Sarah needs to address that context in order to genuinely address the problem.

Therefore, in addition, I propose that the community make a statement against incivilility and all forms of nationalist labelling and name calling on Troubles-, British- and Irish-related articles. Editors who engage in repeated incivility on these articles or who engage in nationalist labeling or name calling should receive similar escalating blocks, civility mentorship and topic bans.

We need to make it clear that this kind of behavior is a serious breach of the founding principles of Wikipedia. Civility is not optional. Maintaining and developing collegiate relationships between editors is essential to the project. Sarah's behavior damaged that. However, she is not alone and this behavior needs to end. --RA (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think what you are proposing is a community-enacted 'zone' (for want of a better term) of zero-tolerance of incivility, with this zone extending to all topics in the field of British-Irish relations, specifically including the The Troubles, broadly construed. Am I correct? Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In effect, yes. This is an area of heightened tension (but not the only one). It is crucial that editors maintain civility in this area because otherwise things can quickly get out of hand. I have seen editors become increasingly lax towards civility on these topics. In fact, some editors strike me as not even trying to be civil anymore. Eventually, this blows up into mayhem as tension builds up and ill-feelings fester.

It is also extremely off-putting to editors who want to contribute to these areas of the project but are put off by the combative nature of the area (even on sometimes the most innocuous of things).

I propose the following community sanction:

It's a big long-winded and I'm not precious about the precise sanction or the wording. It is the enforcement of a spirit of collegialism and civility in the wider community context that I am interested in. --RA (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the justification for an arbitration case and has many things that sound like arbitration remedies and procedures, just without the case having happened. I see absolutely no plausible benefit of this community sanction, given it doesn't contain anything that isn't already basic policy, and isn't already actionable after being reported to ANI or having been properly passed through other DR venues. I personally have seen many such reports just shuffled off into the archive in the sky with no action, or even no substantive independent comment at all, save the usual meat puppets turning up to say the usual unsurprising things. The one such area of specific community sanction recently, BI naming, has had a very distinct game/lawyer-tastic flavour to it, while doing absolutely nothing to further the goals of ensuring a quality & respectful editing environment about which you speak of, let alone ensuring basic NPOV is respected. I simply don't see how this is going to change that, or focus people's minds any further than they already should be. It's not news to anyone, not least the admin corps, that the area of this topic is an ongoing source of dispute & policy violation. I for one agree that certain editors have been guilty of most or all of the above in this topic area, but you'd probably be flabbergasted to learn that I think one of them is you. I'm having a hard time getting you to acknowledge basic things like how un-"cooperative" it is for you to be making a proposal, recieving valid & detailed objections, and not responding to those in anything but the most policy lite personal opinion assertive or accusatory terms, and then simply returning to make the same proposal 6 months later to see if the 'consensus has changed'. The only way forward is either increased admin oversight in the areas, or an arbitration case, which if it found evidence for any of the above as a general theme, would punt violations into the field of arbitration enforcement, which is shall we say, a rather less volunteer driven process as regards getting someone to actually say yes that's a violation, or no, go away. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

On your point that none of the above isn't actionable already, I wholly agree. Unfortunately, like you say, "reports just [get] shuffled off into the archive in the sky with no action". At this stage I, personally, wouldn't even consider reporting some of the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith that I (and everyone else) receive. Nothing would come of it. If anyone did respond, I think I'd just get told to grow a thicker skin and stop coming to ANI with drama. And that's the problem: incivillity goes unchecked and consequently it is rampant and endemic.

That is the point of what I am proposing: no more shuffling off into the archive in the sky. Civility matters and these issues need to be addressed. I'm not precious about how it happens and at least the two of us agree that something has to happen — whether it is increased admin supervision or (another) ArbCom case as you suggest, or something else. --RA (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an incredibly wide ranging proposal - there are probably thousands of articles that are in some way connected to the UK and Ireland - 99.9% of which will never see any sign of Troubles or British Isles naming nonsense - to wave a vague threat of sanction over all these articles and all the editors who edit them is not helpful - are you going to ban someone for making an edit to say The Goodies (TV series)? The behaviour of the few editors who cause this problem should be dealt with by normal admin means - not by punishing everybody else.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Nigel Ish. And furthermore this is veering off topic. Consensus above is to unblock per the conditions laided out by Mting.
RA, proposals like the above are not going to fly. The vast majority of users on wikipedia understand and abide by WP:5 and need nothing else. The minority who can't need to learn how to, but if they can't it's their problem--Cailil ^talk 00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool enough. But in that case, can we start spelling it out to the minority so that they might learn? Incivility is a terribly incedious thing. It only takes a clutch of editors, who think naming calling, aggression and poor faith are par for the course, to drain morale and turn people off contributing to the project.

We need a healthy, respectful working environment where we can collaborate construtively (and keep focus on our work, and not the drama). I, personally, have tuned out twice in the last six months because I just don't want to contribute anymore in an environment where everything runs the gauntlet of combative editors and nothing is taken at face value. And yes, they are a minority - but they seem to be the only one's left on some pages. --RA (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree, these sectors are uninviting for new users and also any users that are not willing to involve themselves in an opinionated POV battlefield situation. We all know who the ringleaders are and we need to remove them using edit restrictions, they create a toxic environment and by their example encourage other contributors to join in and create gangs of tag teaming meatpuppets. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're trying to make it specifically illegal for me to call you up on your nationalistic views when I feel you are being unreasonable due to them RA, it's not going to work(!) Appeal per WP:AGF if you feel people are being out of line with you – it's a law Wikipedia already has, and it's made to measure. You are blessed with the knack of always being calm an passive outwardly (though occasionally hurt when under criticism) when you offer your own personal views/demands in all these UK/IRE issues, but not everyone has the ability to be controlled at all times – an ability of course that can get people past these laws you propose.

Your proposal also effectively reinforces the various UK/IRE schisms, which is a criticism I always have of you - because I don't think it's right, and that is simply my opinion. UK/IRE should be such a 'special case' – Wikipedia should be able to deal with it completely, as it is in no way the bloody 'real word' battle people claim it is on here. All the UK/IRE issues on Wikipedia would pretty-much end with two simple guidelines so much more productive than the endlessly-punitive 'policing' ones: WP:BRITISH ISLES (Wikipedia chooses archipelago-only) and WP:SOVEREIGNTY (sovereignty is of greater weight to nationalism) is honestly all it will take. A number of 'reliably sourced' polemics will immediately lose their exaggerated power, and issues like Londonderry/Derry, British Isles and the UK-country 'naming disputes' will all be effectively resolved - and decent explanatory editing can then take place over the limitless space within Wikipedia (and there is plenty of it already – it's always that fight for the premium space). Admin will finally have something to go by when people contravene these guidelines. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, can we try and keep this about Sarah - and about existing policy too? If we make it an actual offence to point out nationalist bias, we may as well close the doors and switch off the lights in terms of NPOV. "The significance of words and symbolism in describing them"? This isn't the place RA. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Who will bell the cat?

We may think we are getting somewhere by refining the items on Sarah777's edit restrictions, but there is one detail which I feel has been overlooked. All of this depends on a mentor for this user; who is willing to take on this responsibility? With the right person, we won't need to worry much about the details of these restrictions, because the mentor's judgment will more than make up for shortcomings in this area. Lastly, what should be done if no one does take it on? Or the mentor either clearly fails at the job -- or throws it up because she/he can't keep Sarah777 from reverting to her bad habits? (Not that I'm volunteering for this. I have too little time for Wikipedia at the moment as it is.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure a mentor is the best thing for Sarah tbh - she is experienced and knows when her blood is up - she just has to curb it now. No more chances. I know she asked for one (which does show her genuine contrition I believe), but I think it's moot, and could be a needless extra responsibility for someone too. I'm writing a proposal for her that will hopefully explain. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it John (talk · contribs) has agreed to be Sarah's mentor. They are not someone I've had any interaction with but nobody has commented about their unsuitability anywhere, so I'm happy with them taking the responsibility if the community agrees to her return with a mentor (in any other circumstance it's irrelevant of course). Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am still open to doing this. I must say it's nice that nobody has any problems with my being Sarah's mentor, I wasn't expecting that. I guess we should move to close this soon, once we have an agreement on exactly where her restrictions should be. I'm in favor of not being too legalistic about it as I think Sarah is intelligent enough to know when she is crossing the line, but just sometimes lacks the ability to think before posting or editing. I am hoping that I will be able to coach her in this area and allow her to make the many useful edits she has been making without the troublesome ones. --John (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting up a proposal directly below in a very short while, which you might want to consider, even just in part. If Sarah really wants a mentor, and you are happy to do it, then it's hard to say otherwise - but I wonder if what she asked for was not out of her desire simply to be back? A mentor combined with a Troubles topic ban does seem rather daft to me - I'll ask her to clarify on her talk page now. Perhaps she genuinely feels she may too-easily transgress, so would rather edit in other areas instead. The Troubles though is a hard 'area' to completely (or completely adequately) define, esp in the light of nationalist quibbling over things like British Isles, country status, and matters to do with Northern Ireland in general. I'd like to See Sarah in those areas when she wants to be (and wherever she wants to edit), but with a couple of "do nots" in place (supposing she can accept them - she doesn't have to return at all of course). BTW, if anyone wants to say that her chances have all gone again at this point - please don't bother - I'm just expressing my views, and I think its ott. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Less punitive but more to-the-point proposal

I respect many of the comments above, but I'm worried about a few things happening here that will lead to an unfair decision. Sorry if this is a bit rushed in appearance - I saw the ANI a bit late and since lost my draft, but I've made some points below that I wanted to make first, and followed it with the proposal:

1. Please don't assume that Sarah is worse than she is, and it's worth noting here that she had a long gap between offenses too. She's a decent time served editor.
2. Sarah seems to harbour an opinion that British people are somehow interconnected with the British past – but please do not be tempted to factor that into your judgement on the terms on the unblock – only her past and likely future actions. Sarah may feel as she does partly through her negative opinion of UK foreign policy, but people's harboured opinions (and many are much worse than this on Wikipedia) simply cannot be actioned-on by Wikipedia, Only their behaviour can, and policy should normally be able to cover that.
3. I think that sanctions etc can be used to do the job of policy, rather than just add a few requirements to policy. As this is about unblocking from an indefinite block, and something of a “last chance” too, a couple of specific requirements additional to policy do clearly need to be made here – but policy (and whether Sarah is likely to meet it) must be central.
4. Please don't fall in the trap of thinking that nobody can be neutral on UK/IRE issues: this is not at all true. Many people are neutral on even the most controversial of these related matters, and this idea is imo rather against the ethos of Wikipedia, which is to behave neutrally via policy. I've always thought that it is achievable in this area, and the addition of some specific guidelines (if they ever do happen) would go as far as to pretty-much neutralise it on WP. Guidelines are infinitely better than various sanctions.
5. Try not to knock people who speak their mind. Obviously people should not be offensive (hence all this), but with Sarah you always know where she stands, and that can be a real bonus in a place where it can pay so-much to use all-manner of less-open approaches.
6. Don't knock someone who's willing to accept they've erred either. A couple of slips perhaps, but Sarah is seeing and understanding the issue.
7. Try not to think in terms on indef blocks for cases like Sarah– they are drastic things and more for trolls and the like. Sarah is a decent and long-standing editor, albeit a passionate one.
8. RE topic banning – I think it's a hard thing to pull off in cases like this, esp regarding user's talk pages. Sarah's talk pages are often quite communal, and a number of editors will be expressing all kinds of things there, and it's not so easy to stop them from doing that. It's also worth saying I think that it's impossible to remove people from Wikipedia altogether, although I don't think this applies to Sarah. I think that it's best to look at the minimum first, and work upwards with these things, and try not to be punitive for the sake of it. (I think that may actually be an admin guideline, though I could be wrong). Also, the Troubles are very wide-ranging, and can blend into a number of UK/IRE areas. Why do something potentially awkward and problematic when something else (see below) will suffice? Try not to think punitively as I say, especially after the time block involved. It's really about Sarah's future editing.
9. Mentoring is surely not always ideal for experienced editors. It takes an admin's time up reading ahead of things, and there have been at least one case of an editor who seemed to me a little more powerful than he should have been, after he was punished with a sympathetic mentor who apologised on his behalf! Why put two people in the mix? I prefer to have faith in policy, and keeping things as simple as possible so people know where they stand. But if mentoring (or even a topic ban) is what Sarah genuinely wants... I've asked her on her talk about this, but she hasn't replied yet (it's late where she is). (NOTE: She accepts John and I now think it's a good idea Matt Lewis (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)).
10. Finally, listen to Sarah – it's about her. Why not? She's not a criminal don't forget, just a Wikipedian.

The proposal:

I personally don't see any purpose in topic banning Sarah, or even blocking her any longer. She does need something specific though.

So Sarah must,

• Acknowledge that it is against Wikipedia policy to claim that there is a propensity for inherent bias amongst British editors on Wikipedia. This is unprovable, and potentially offensive to contributing editors who simply happen to be British. It is also damaging to Wikipedia because it spreads bad faith.

• Understand that universally and broadly labelling "the British", by name or clear inference, with language likely to be considered offensive, is also against Wikipedia policy.

• A line on an indefinite block in the future.

• (Note: I'm adding to this User:John as a mentor, and a British Isles topic ban - per Sarah's comments on her talk. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC))

These cover the two issues, and the phrasing can be worked if necessary. There is no need to mention Ireland, and you could even use more general words for "British", but there is really no point as the British (or various aspects of British history in reality) have been the actual problem with Sarah, and she seems to be quite socialistic otherwise. I'm sure that as long as she ceases to express her strong feelings over the 'bloodier' aspects of British history in terms of British people, her editing on Wikipedia will surely remain as productive as it normally is. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Thanks you Matt for the work you have put in over this, and your well made points, however her Block Log would seem to indicate a history of (to be polite) getting into battles that end up needing admin attention. An editor with such a contribution count should be given another chance, but for her sake she needs to avoid given topics that push her buttons, it is for that reason I think she should avoid (with threat of an block) the pages listed in the sections above, and the only way I see that working is with a ban. I do however agree with your point about the usefulness of a mentor. So at this time I, regrettably have to Oppose this proposal Mtking (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I know the log isn't great, but she's got in ruts in the past that shouldn't be able to happen in the future now. She is also genuinely contrite. Perhaps we could think of this in stages? Should there be another instance with Sarah regarding these matters (and hopefully there won't ever be), then a topic ban is the next stop. I'm very uncomfortable with the drastic escalation of Sarah's case here (a lot of people would be really angry if the indef block remained for example), because I don't think it helps find a actual workable solution for Sarah - which we have a real duty to do I think. I'm going to add this to the bottom of each of the two bullets if you don't mind. Sorry to do that to you after you replied, but at least only two people have so far! Matt Lewis (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Good work Matt, I believe it is a fresh look at things. I've a clarification question. Sometimes it can be difficult to understand if Sarah genuinely has a problem with "the British" (meaning all people who are British), or "the British" (meaning the ruling establishment). Should Sarah modify her language to, for example, compare the "policies of an historic British establishment or government" with (the policies of) Nazi Germany - is this opinion that is allowable, or offensive? --HighKing (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I was playing around with the second paragraph till the early hours, but needed to get something up obviously. I agree that a little more clarification wouldn't hurt it - though I think Sarah777 (and others) know what the wording entails. I'll actually put it to Sarah too I think. To be sober about this (and this relates to the comment to MtKing above), Sarah will need to try this out (ie work out what is reasonable 'wiggle room', as someone mentioned) - but any more offensive stuff (and people are pretty clear when it's happened) should lead to proper topic bans I think. I don't think you can get much more serious action than topic bans. But yes - we could perhaps improve the language to specifically say that ambiguous attacks are likely to cause offence given her past. She needs to be careful HK, but she can be. It's not rocket science. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you think now? As just two of you have commented, I've adjusted it slightly. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt, the reason I asked the question is because commenting on "the British", as a people, is racist. End of. And shouldn't be tolerated. Commenting on "the British" as a ruling body with policies and responsibilities, while not racist, *may* be deeply offensive. Sarah ... has a way with words. She can certainly learn. I think the proposal has merit and I support it. --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Specific article topic bans are justified with her record on them, such as BI, ROI. I also personally have my doubts she would agree to this wording. I'm not really seeing where you get the idea that "Sarah is seeing and understanding the issue". Frankly, for Sarah, there is no indefinite block and appeal 'next time'; it would be a straight up community ban proposal, and it would sail through imho, even if her next infraction was completely minor. MickMacNee (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think to say Sarah would "sail through a community ban" is totally inapt, and who are you to say prejudge what will happen? Isn't a 'community ban' the complete ban for totally disruptive people? I find that really OTT - and I'm getting a bit concerned over the level of punitive people commenting here. It would depend entirely how it's all portrayed for a start, esp with a "minor infraction"! But there can't be a minor infraction with this proposal - that's the whole point of it. If she causes offense in this area again, then she's looking at an indef block followed by topic bans upon a successful apeal. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

With her record, if she made just one more error, a ban proposal would sail through. That's a stone cold fact. MickMacNee (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as working to be honest. This is already Sarah's last chance, and several people believe that this is more than she deserves. Even if Sarah were the model contributor from this point forward, her past actions mean that there is no way that her presence on pages like British Isles will be seen as uncontroversial for a good few years at least, and topic banning her from them is as much about preventing the encyclopaedia from drama as it is about protecting it from biased editing. Accordingly I must oppose any proposal that does not include topic bans for those areas where Sarah has previously shown not to be able to put aside her beliefs and work collegiately. It's not having these beliefs that is a problem, it is not being able to work with editors who don't share them. Topic bans allow her to contribute positively to the encyclopaedia in areas where she is able to work without drama. To borrow an analogy made by someone else in a different context, if Hitler were alive today he would be welcomed as a Wikipedia editor if he stayed clear of articles related to Judaism and homosexuality and spent time writing high quality articles about vegetarianism (and before anyone misunderstand the analogy, this is not comparing Sarah to Hitler nor her actions with his). Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For me, that Hitler analogy fails on each level - and I'm afraid there is a comparison with Sarah here too - if a rather clumsy one. Unlike Sarah (and the many like her), no-one would want to be near Hitler at all. Clearly ultra-extreme people require immediate community proposals to see if other Wikipedians can edit with them around. Supposing Hitler did survive that, policy alone should handle any biased Jewish-related edits - Wikipedia should never pre-censor (ie topic ban) someone just due to their known opinion.

Also (as it happens), many of Hitler's numerous health problems were probably down to the fact that he ate little else but meat! He was severely flatuent, and was told by his doctor to lay off the red stuff and see if it helped. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

After the early 1930s, Hitler generally followed a vegetarian diet, although he ate meat on occasion. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A small point (but an important one) Thryduulf and MickMacNee, but Sarah hasn't edited on British Isles for ... yonks and yonks. What is the "biased editing" you speak of in that area? I believe the main problem we are trying to address is *not* that Sarah has "biased editing" in general, but that she on occasion has a big brain fart, and lashes out at "the British" in a seemingly out-of-control fashion. (Ideally, it'd be great if there was one of those great big red "Emergency Stop" buttons on her web page where a potentially destructive rampage can be halted *before* it spirals out of control) 99% of the time, she is a valuable and net positive contributor here. She is not a vandal. --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We gotta view Sarah777, as a George Patton type. Out on the fields of the 'pedia, she's great - there's no vandalism & no socking. However, she's prone to gaffes & being a tad too honest. Come on, ease up on the indef-block stuff. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, Mick, Rklawton (and any actual admin/arb who are reading, please) - this is important. Sarah has not been a constantly disruptive editor (or even editor) on the British Isles article, or disruptive anywhere else normally. Re BI, do you realise people like Gold Heart are still editing there? Please, don't even go there. Let's have some perspective here please.

There is half a case for just topic banning Sarah on BI and nothing else because she does not actually want Wikipedia to keep using the term (but only half a case). BI covers the Troubles in an implicit way, but it's also sufficiently contained. But topic banning her on anything more that covers UK/IRE, aside from being simply OTT, is just going to cause all manor of talk-page and general 'boundary' issues. Please - lets make this purely a behaviour thing.

I can see now that there is also a case for using my proposal and giving her a mentor too, which she and John might both be happy with. A mentor might be able to protect her too - and it looks like she might need it, thinking about that from another angle. I have to say that I'm really uncomfortable with the level of punitive judgement I've been reading on her talk page and on her. I'd like someone to take note of that - others may feel it too. IMO, Sarah is being over-chastised by a smallish group of people who are often describing themselves as 'the community speaking'. The community must be bigger than this. I'm mainly interested in admin and the arbs in terms of judgement, to be perfectly honest (and I don't often say things like that!). Matt Lewis (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's of any use at all, I'd be happy to throw the occasional helpful mentor's-sidekick helping-hand in. Though I'm British, I'm as neutral as a very neutral thing on vast numbers of issues (including the GB/Ireland thing); also 50+ real-life years and various accumulated insights / wisdoms / wossnames. I understand passionate people. Happy to be called-upon for input from time to time. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 02:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I could care less if Sarah hasn't editted articles like BI for years, we know what happens when she does. That's why a topic ban in those areas where she is known to have absolutely no self control is the absolute minimum, whether her visits are daily or yearly. That's precisely because we don't have 'emergency stop' buttons, just blocks. And I've already spoken on the futility of such broad bans like all things Irish. MickMacNee (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What about your well-known temper? You know Mick, I remember (all too well) when I completely lost it with an admin over the 'wheel warring' that happened after Ireland was a 'disam page' for a couple of days. He blocked me for 2 weeks then shortly-after unblocked me so I could defend myself. Who was it who was urging him to change it to an 'indef' to remove me (a "disruptive editor") from the project? Simply because I was fighting to maintain the admin's decision to create the disam page, and in doing so ultimately pushing for the opposing stance of yours (as was Sarah). That's both of us you've tried to remove from the area isn't it?

The problem I have is that too many over-punitive people are chipping-in at the moment. It needs to be taken into account. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I don't even recall the incident, so while it might be relevant to your comments, it certainly hasn't been to mine. This isn't an issue of temper with Sarah, it's an issue of her complete inability to accept some very basic principles about what Wikipedia is and how people are expected to interact here. I've not said anything more punitive than has been applied to other editors with similar records and with similar issues. MickMacNee (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I've declined the still-open unblock request on the following grounds: "This request has now been open for almost a week. In the meantime, a very long discussion at ANI has not come to a clear conclusion. Many people there support your unblock, but only subject to a more or less comprehensive topic ban. It is not clear from the discussion what exactly the scope of the ban should be. Since at any rate you say that you propose a one month block, which has not yet elapsed, I am at this time declining the request without prejudice. You can make another request after consensus has been reached at ANI about the conditions for your return to editing, or you can try to negotiate the conditions of an unblock with WP:BASC."  Sandstein  16:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 - can we move towards a conclusion?

I don't completely understand the ramifications of the above statement from Sandstein (I hope it doesn't pre-judge a topic ban), but I've been working solidly towards facilitating a conclusion here - which some people could perhaps be following and waiting on? I've come to the point anyway, and have this to say:

Sarah is happy for John to be her mentor (which is important for it to work), and accepts my above proposal. It basically says "another indiscretion and there will be a minimum of a topic ban". Given Sarah's normally harmless productivity, anything more is quite wrong imo, and pandering to some people in here and on her talk-page who (for whatever reason) are simply going too far. It's even been quite ugly at times - in my opinion.

As Sarah's only problems have occurred - very sporadically - in a couple of UK/IRE crossover areas, so it surely should be regarded as a pointless waste of resources to topic-ban and give her a mentor too? Sarah clearly isn't going suddenly stop harbouring an opinion on the British state (and that's not in Wikipedia's remit), but she MUST express it less ambiguously/stupidly from now on, and is perhaps advised not to express an actual opinion here on it at all. Nor will she cease to have the odd opinion on adminship (who doesn't?). Nor will she suddenly cease to be provoked by people, some who mean well and some who don't. I think a mentor could be of assistance with that last fact (simply in dis-encouraging possible provocation through his presence), and so I would add mentoring by John to my proposal.

• Does anyone here accept my above proposal, or want to build from it?

I came here to ask if we could move to a conclusion, but have been taken by surprise by Sandstein's comment (I hope I'm not just a couple of hours too late). Does anyone recommend where I/we can go from here? An admin or arb please - ie someone who is neutral about Sarah: I've got a bit tired of the repeated negative comments made by just a few users. Everyone negative about Sarah has surely had their say now.

If the 1 month is to elapse, perhaps a decision can still be made soon? I'd know I would appreciate that, and I think think this ANI could really outstay its welcome if only the same few people stay involved. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Matt Lewis that this needs to move to a conclusion if for no other reason than this is just wasting time. As I see it there are three options we have :

• Option A : (Based Matt Lewis proposal above) Unblock with John as mentor, no topic ban at this time.
• Option B : (Based Thryduulf proposal above) Unblock with John as mentor, with a topic and page ban on the areas that push Sarah's buttons.
• Option C : Block stays in place and Sarah needs to take the matter up with the Arbitration Committee.

I agree with a number of the points made by Matt in his reasoning for why he feels why we must unblock Sarah, but I feel that with a topic and page ban on those pages would be doing both the project and her a service. Thryduulf makes a very good point on Sarah's talk page here when talking about editors in what he calls "the third category" that have "strongly and passionately [held] believes". It is for that reason I think Option B is the way forward. Mtking (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for laying out the options here. The only thing I'd say to your preference is that A) Sarah mainly edits in Irish areas, and there is obvious crossover (esp in talk pages and via people she knows), and B) what's the point of her having a mentor if she's not editing in the problem places? It seems very resource wasteful. I also find it too punitive to be honest - the people who edit in these areas can be too-passionate admittedly, but they can also curb it, esp with things like my above proposal and the threat of an immediate article block in place. Why jump the gun when we have this stage to try? I think arbs have a responsibility to try positive solutions, and look for positive results. Sarah has shown that she could be fine for year-long periods: it's not all the time she does things like this! Matt Lewis (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said here I agree with you on the mentor point, as it was Sarah's idea I see no harm in having one, would equally be happy if Option B did not have one. Mtking (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I just can't fathom why you people don't want to give her another chance before dealing her immediate topic-bans. I really feel that people are jumping a natural level here, and that it is totally unwarranted in this case. I just don't see it as representative of a/the 'community'. Surely there must be some reasonably supportive people out there? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I like the "you people" comment - but will gloss over that to say that I do feel Sarah should return, and should never find herself blocked again, that is why I think it is good for her and the project to have areas of the project she does go to, namely those areas she has very strong views on and are likely to get her buttons pushed. What is wrong with that ? Mtking (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, by "you people" I simply mean the small amount of contributors here who I view as being over-punitive: yes I'm find this frustrating.

You are simply jumping the gun by forbidding her particular areas at this juncture. And as I keep saying (and many non-contributors here will know), there is simply too much crossover on these issues: it will be too problematic from a technical point of view - and we need clarity here. Ireland is Sarah's main editing field: she's Irish, she lives there, it's her country. She's been a major Irish contributor in fact. Her wiki-friends will crossover too. You may as well just keep her indefinitely blocked.

Can I ask yourself this: What is wrong with Sarah having a mentor combined with the threat of an immediate topic ban if she should transgress again? That's not been done before, so why jump the gun? Sarah actually thought about it all for a few days before making the unblock request, just to make sure that she could comply: then she came back and said she could. I see no reason why she can't, esp with this proposal and a mentor. AGF has not been obliterated by her at all - she's not been anywhere near as bad as people seem to think.

And I'm going to say one last thing (and try and leave it here): Underneath the specific issues where things have actually got fraught with Sarah (and others, obviously), there have been real issues that Wikipedia has failed to deal with. That's not Sarah's fault, despite flare-ups over the years where she's commented irresponsibly (presumptuously really, in terms of her implicit qualities, and without seeing that she needs to apply explicit consideration in how other's may feel - some people are a bit airy like that, and she needs to properly address it). Wikipedia itself has to be positive about sorting out a few nationality-related problems, and that simple fact underscores all of this. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I Don't want to continue this either as it is clear neither of us is going to be persuaded so will try and keep this short, I do think that Thryduulf's proposal is workable, it consists of a hand full of pages to keep clear of and some specialist subject areas relating to Anglo-Irish relations. I don't think this is a case of jumping the gun, look again at her block log. In answer to "What is wrong with .... threat of an immediate topic ban if she should transgress again" again look at her block log. Under Thryduulf's proposal she would be be able to work on nearly all of the articles relating to Ireland. I sincerely hoped that both sides of the debate could come together and find a solution that would see Sarah editing again, however I am resigned to the fact that this is going to probably end here, with no unblock, leaving Sarah having to go to the Arbitration Committee which does know one any good.Mtking (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with putting off the topic ban is that this is not a first offence, and the threat of a topic ban didn't work last time. If she is unblocked now then it will be her last chance, no "we'll topic ban you next time" as (1) we've said it before and (2) there wont be a next time. Whether a community ban would "sail through" after a minor offence as someone else suggested I don't know, but for anything other than a minor technical infraction then I wouldn't bet on her being unblocked again in less than a year. Regarding the specifics of a topic ban, yes Ireland is her main area of interest which is why in my proposal you will note that I explicitly rejected a broad ban on Ireland related topics, and while she would be banned from the Republic of Ireland article she could edit County Cork, Ballinasloe and Larne (to pick places at random), as long as she steered clear of editing those articles in relation to the naming of the British Isles, Anglo-Irish relations or The Troubles (which should be possible). There is also no interaction ban proposed, so as long as she remains civil then there will be no problem with who else edits the articles - if other editors try and 'bait' her (or anyone else) or indeed are disruptive in any other way they will be dealt with separately. If you think that any one (or more) of the topic bans in my proposal is too broad/too narrow/otherwise unworkable, please comment (in the section provided) with specifics that can be discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. This really, really is my last comment until Sarah talks to HJMitchell at least. Thryduulf, I know you think it's workable - but I don't. And neither do people like MickMacNee, who has argued (though not very well) to keep the indef block for this reason. It's not that so-specific topic-bans make things fraught with "danger" - as I don't personally think that Sarah is going to transgress again - it's that it creates a situation with likely tiresome problems. Why create the drama? I don't think that any element of ambiguity helps.

It is simple to me: Sarah CANNOT repeat what she has done, and if she doesn't then it doesn't matter where she edits, does it? If she does transgress, then she will no-doubt be lucky to actually even get a topic ban: a long-term or indef block could well be more likely (and she really does accept this). That, combined with a mentor, seems to me the reasonable, logical and sensible route, and I don't believe that WP should be anything other too. Arbcom simply has a duty to look positively towards workable solutions. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I still resolutely oppose unblocking Sarah777 without a topic ban in place. She's done enough constant battleground editing; if she is allowed to edit again, she should not have the chance edit those areas again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If she is allowed to edit again? What's with this place? Let me tell you this: those areas are stuffed full of socks and nasty IP's - stuffed with them. You should see the things I've been called. Sarah is absolutely nothing compared to those people. We should actually respect the fact that she only has one account. And we can't go after Sarah for the crimes of others (ie the general disruption within an area) either. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "if". As she is currently indefinitely blocked, that's a perfectly logical conjunction here. Your "she's not as bad as others" argument is hardly convincing. It does nothing to show why she should be permitted to edit. It only helps to give insight concerning why she's been allowed to poison the well for so long without being banned. As for "what's with this place", well, that would take several dissertations to go into, but trying to stop a battleground mentality from dominating Wikipedia is not one of the things that's wrong with it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've given plenty of justification for pete's sake: 90% of the time Sarah is very productive and completely normal: she is just not the 'rogue editor' you are gunning for. How dare you damn her in such condemning terms, and leave such a nasty trail? Who are you to place 'the project' before it's workers, and reasonable stages of justice (don't even think it approaches the developed world in that - with it's little-mob justice, and religiously-ordained chiefs)? The encyclopedia is one thing, and it may not quite be about 'truth' (all the tough-stuff etc), but this side of the coin is all about the editing community - it's about human beings. Wikimedia has a duty of care to them (whatever the did, and Sarah is just not that bad for heaven's sake) - esp the time-served ones.

I'm a committed Wikipedian, but I'd rather see the whole project stop tomorrow if it started openly de-valuing its contributors right to fair and unprejudiced proceeding in situations like this. It's not that important to the world. Wikipedia cannot come before its people, and the generally-understood principles of simple human rights. It if did it may as well be compiled by a computer randomly-searching for verified sources (and some areas I've seen here would probably be no worse if it did - there's a lot of work to do before WP can fly any flags imo). Matt Lewis (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As I have said many times, Sarah is indeed a productive editor in many (and indeed probably most) areas, however she is not a productive editor in all areas. The point of the topic bans in my proposal, which I still stand by as believing to be the best way forward, is to allow her to contribute to those areas where she is productive, which she cannot do while blocked, while at the same time preventing the drama associated with her contributions from those areas that have proven troublesome in the past. I cannot support any proposal that doesn't include topic bans for this reason. Indeed it is preferable that she remain blocked to being allowed to resume editing in those areas she has proven herself incapable of remaining civil with regards to; although this obviously less preferable than her being allowed to resume editing on areas where she is a valuable contributor.

If you believe that other users are also causing problems then please excercise the dispute resolution process regarding them. If it takes the removal of one disruptive party to identify other disruptive parties that is unfortunate but not a reason to allow the removed party to continue being disruptive.

Human rights are not relevant to Wikipedia, it is an internet site that we all contribute to voluntarily. The only rights any of us have are (1) the right to have our edits attributed and shared according to the creative commons attribution share alike license and the GNU Free Documentation License; and (2) the right to leave (either through a simple cessation of editing or by exercising the right to vanish). That is it. There is no right to proceedings, let alone fair and balanced ones - that we have them in some cases is simply because it often works best to have them, and does not guarantee the right to them. See the related Wikipedia:Free speech. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa: unless you are also Heimstern you can't begin "As I have said many times" - I'm responding to him, not you. Don't gang up as a block - it's not suitable for ANI. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom has a duty of care, and that is partly why they are voted for. To wikilawyer around that really isn't clever at all imho, and it leaves a bad taste. You have a clear position on Sarah, as do I - but you are only one admin: a number of others who know of Sarah and the issues (many invisible it seems) have a better idea of the 'areas' involved here, how pointless it is to just start ANI proceedings on people all the time, and how easily some of the issues can blend into other 'areas' too.

Sarah will hopefully be talking 1:1 to the admin who blocked her soon - which is a sensible thing ot happen I think. I do personally want to sign out of here now though, as it's just gone on too long and (though I'm no soft touch) I'm genuinely finding this demoralising. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, you could be a little less condescending. "How dare you" is not an appropriate tone to take when talking to people. You are not my dad, thanks very much (and frankly, I don't let my dad talk to me like that anymore). You seem to have lost all realization that people can be rational human beings and still disagree with you. Whether Sarah's work outside of nationalist hotspots I cannot say, but I can say that her behaviour within the Ireland-Britain hotspot was completely unacceptable. If indeed her work outside that is of good quality, then allow it, but forbid the unacceptable behaviour, which is to say have her topic banned from the Britain-Ireland disputes. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and as for your accusation of "over-the-top nastiness", that is absolute rubbish. I am characterizing Sarah777's behaviour, not attacking her person, and my characterizations are entirely accurate. I have described her as treating Wikipedia as a battleground. And so she does. If you don't think comparing the British flag to the Nazi swastika is battleground behaviour, I can't do anything for you. If you're fine with all that, OK, but it's still against Wikipedia policy. I've got nothing against Sarah personally, and as I've said, I've nothing against unblocking her if the topic ban is in place to stop the battleground editing. So please, enough with accusing me of "nastiness". Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The goal is to reduce drama. If Sarah's problems relate to a specific area (and it seems they do) then it's an easy choice to see the best option to eliminate problems is a topic ban. Also, the comments about ones rights above is plain silly. You have precisely three rights. Right of Attribution, Right to Fork and Right to Vanish, and when it boils down to it two of those are imposed by our license. This is not a government body, it is a private entity and as such is not bound by the First Amendment or (insert local equivalent here). -- ۩ Mask 14:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah has an obvious right to a duty of care (ie even-handed fairness) from arbcom. IMO too, she has given a lot to Wikipedia, so they also have a responsibility simply to consider her in their decision, and not just hit the big buttons in the mistaken belief that it always the best in theory. I hate all this macho stuff with the 'company' laws etc - nobody here is clueless of all that, and it's entirely missing the point. Why do you think arbcom are voted in? So they can get through all this shit and still the best decision (without having to necessarily pander to 'micro-communities' too). I'm not calling for a union for pete's sake, although one wonders if there will eventually be one with attitudes as pre-Victorian as these. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat this more time: the only solution that is actually guaranteed to cause some kind of drama is the topic-ban one. In this particular area it is impossible to avoid crossover in a number of ways, so it will very-likely eventually become problematic for Sarah. Why not actually listen to the people who understand the area involved? Hopefully it would only be harmless "what if?/whoops/leave Sarah alone/I forgot/I think she may have" drama - but with the attitude in here, and the likelihood of unpleasant intervention when it happens, I would actually recommend to Sarah not to accept a topic ban at all, and just simply leave Wikipedia instead. (or wait the required length of time for a review). I'm beginning to wonder again if I want to be here myself. This is all so needless. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If a topic ban is of specific articles/pages then it is very clear what is allowed and what isn't (i.e. page is either on the banned list or it isn't). Where they are types of article then inevitably there will be black and white areas and grey ones = for example with the proposed ban on "The Troubles", Omagh bombing is clearly covered, and Night of the Big Wind clearly isn't. If Sarah finds there is an article that she isn't sure whether it comes under this ban (and she should err on the side of caution) then she should first of all ask her mentor's opinion and not edit it unless and until they say she is free to. Does that answer your question? Thryduulf (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask you a question, and you are as deaf as a post. What you did to Sarah on her talk in the middle of her night deserves a ANI section itself. What they hell are you playing out? You are answering other people's questions here and on her talk page, clearly pushing her into a corner, and deliberately prompting a certain type of behaviour from her that you know will do her no good. She responded as she did to HJMitchell (the response you had NO RIGHT to reply too of his behalf) simply because she read this ANI and felt utterly demoralised, as do I - I'm telling you that is a fact.

You know nothing of the editor or the area, but you relentlessly attempting to prejudice proceedings. You want Sarah topic banned from Wales for Heaven's sake! How can any sane person rationalise that? It would be impossible for any editor on Wikipedia to edit with the restrictions you demand without some form of 'difficulty' ensuing, let alone someone who is supposed to be curbing certain impulses! It's just not logical in around 5 different ways, no least in keeping her away from where she harmlessly edits. You seem to be deliberately pushing Sarah into corners now and in the future too - ones she basically cannot get out of - because of pointless restrictions, and people like yourself waiting in the background when there is an issue with them. I edit in these places - and I've no idea where all the various 'boundaries' are now. And do you even begin to realise how utterly offensive topic banning Sarah from Wales is? Not in Wales actually being in any kind of mire - but in being dragged into someone's ignorant perception of it. You just do not have a clue. You are totally clumsy, seriously nosey (other people's dialogues are just that) and, imo, far too-much enjoying position here, when others are clearly finding this really upsetting.

Please step away from this one now - you have repeated wedged-in you position, you are not listening to the arguments, and you are adding nothing new. It is highly likely now that Sarah won't get through this in a way that is good for anyone, and that is in imo a large part thanks to you. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for yet another stream of uncalled-for personal attacks, for which I would ask an uninvolved editor to sanction you for - they are never acceptable. I offered my opinion, which I am perfectly entitled to do and which I am more than happy to discuss in civil terms. I have listened to the arguments, but like other people I disagree with them. My proposed resolution is just that - a proposal on which I have explicitly invited comments several times, although have instead chosen to scream invective at me. You don't get to exclude someone from a discussion because you do not like their opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Stream of what? I'm defending someone here because I have to, not because I particularly want to right now. By all means someone - go ahead and create a section on me. That comment I linked above by Thyduulf on Sarah's talk page was one of the worst cases of 'stepping-over' by an admin I've seen: he deliberately stepped in to prevent her from moderating her speech (or why else do it?). I'm really, really angry about it - and I've suggested to Sarah that she takes a 6 months break simply because of the prevailing attitude here. It's there to see Thyduulf, even if you can't see it yourself. I'm really angry to be honest - it was bang out of order imo. I suggest we all just step away for a period now and leave Sarah to think. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt, he may reply to what he wishes here. This is a community discussion. Your personal attacks on those you disagree with is getting tiresome. And the diff you link on Sarah's talkpage is solid advice presented about a (presumably upcoming) editing restriction and how to avoid getting in trouble. Theres no foul language, and even deference shown to back away because it seemed some confusion had occurred earlier. Did you link to the right diff? -- ۩ Mask 15:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Matt doesn't understand NPA and could use a break. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The diff on Sarah's page was a "response" to Sarah's reply to a requested 1:1 conversation with her blocking admin - he requested the personal dialogue with her. Look, I have a serious issue that a small group of people are giving the illusion of 'community' in here, mainly via repetition. You have to look at the context. KittyBrewster above once sent me an email with nothing in it but a spelling mistake I had made, when we were in disagreement over a difficult UK/IRE issue: this a very weird and complicated area on Wikipedia. Thyduulf has been repeating the same thing wherever he can - no matter who's dialogues he is interrupting - is not imo a fair way just to get his proposal across. I am entitled to say that, esp when it involves simply dismissing my concerns and arguments.

His proposal is valid, but it's also very punitive and is clearly problematic too, which he does have some sense of: just no idea at all of the extent of it, and how it could actual create unnecessary drama, and make situations really problematic for Sarah at times. We need simplicity here - not convolution. We need to focus clarity, blocks and ultimatums. Thyduulf just has to give this ANI on Sarah777 some space now, especially on Sarah's page - and that was his comment I really object to. He totally snubbed my sensible appeal for her to refactor a really-demoralised and confusing late-night comment (made after reading all this - and who can blame her?), he stepped-over HJMitchel who her dialogue was with, and he actually provoked Sarah in claiming that she may not 'jump for joy' over what he's saying (when accepting that her comment was hard to understand!). I feel like it partly keeps her in a perceived character-type, and it's all just got too much now. This is difficult enough for a number of people as it is. Thryduulf has made and repeatedly advocated one of a number of proposals on the table. Sarah has some decisions to make too, but is also being pushed into corners. She has to have some space now to talk to her blocking admin, and to make some decisions herself on what she can and can't do here. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Third, fourth, etc. statements of AKMask and Kittybrewster. Matt, please calm down. You are making too many assumptions and attributing thoughts and actions with nothing but your own vision of what is occurring. If you hadn't noticed, judging by the indentation scheme you just replied to yourself. I think you should let some frustration out somewhere. Step away from the keyboard. Shoot some basketball, garden, arrange furniture, rock out with headphones on, whatever it takes. A few hours away are needed. Sarah and the administrators will work this out, it is clearly at the end stage. The unblock request was denied. The subsequent comments and questions for Sarah need to be handled by Sarah. Although Thryduulf's previous characterizations have concerned me and as you note, there is a tendency to ignore when mistakes are rightly pointed out, kibitzing happens. You have made some great observations and offered an interesting alternative. Please, though, don't continue on this tack, I think you will end up better off after relaxing for a while. Sswonk (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's getting there finally yes, but I think this comment is a bit rich given all of your own really-bizarre contributions to Sarah's talk of late! But I'll take it in good faith. I've said my last piece on Sarah's talk just now. The UK article is back online without the dodgy footnote, so yes - I am going to take a break. But only because I want one(!) So if someone really does want to block me for a few days, I'd be obliged if you could make it now. Thanks, Matt Lewis (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt, thanks for assuming good faith. If you are really concerned about the bizarre nature of that little aside, it was intentionally oblique and goofy, hence the (rare for me) ":)" emoticon. In my last post here, I was concerned for you because I thought your anger / frustration was getting to you. Basically, just hoping to show that concern along with the other editors. Sswonk (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for closure

This is a "formal" request to close this topic; now according to my text editing software the byte count here exceeds 115 KB. The unblock request was denied. The blocking admin and subject, HJ and Sarah, are engaged in a dialog on her talk page, so if it is deemed appropriate and not a problem with the OP, Mtking, I think an uninvolved admin should close and archive this topic sooner rather than later to avoid stragglers and so on firing up more subtopics. Thanks. Sswonk (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

This sockpuppetry case (filed by User:betsythedevine on May 11) was accusing User:Red Stone Arsenal engaging in sockpuppetry. It closed by me because two previous and recent checkuser cases (from April 27 and May 8) have already shown that Red Stone Arsenal is not related to any other accounts. Upon my further investigations, I found that betsythedevine (betsy) and Red Stone Arsenal (RSA) had content disputes in Start-up Nation where betsy and RSA have opposing POV. I cautioned betsy[8] not to abuse the SPI process to intimidate or assassinate RSA's character even though RSA has a different POV because two checkuser reports have individually confirmed that RSA is not related to any accounts. In her reply,[9] Betsy said she's editing under real-life identity and want me to suppress my comments. Furthermore, she think my conclusion constitute personal attack. So I hope if others could take some time and give some third-party comments. Thanks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is this on ANI? There's really nothing to this. She did not ask you to suppress your comments, and I'm bewildered as to where you get that idea. And she did not call your comments a personal attack in that edit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You just missed it, Hand, certainly easy enough to do since the exchanges now span four pages: the SPI Betsy filed which will archive here eventually, Betsy's talk, Ohana's talk, and now here at AN/I. In his first entry to Betsy's talk page, Ohana wrote, "Since Red Stone Arsenal and you have opposing POV at Start-up Nation, I really believe that you use the sockpuppetry case to try and assassinate his character. Therefore, I am cautioning you not to abuse the process and use SPI as a venue to silence editors with other POVs."

In response to this accusation, Betsy posted back to Ohana's talk where she explicitly asked Ohana to redact his comments. Instead of retracting or apologizing, he explained his motivation, on Betsy's talk, and she replied very convincingly about what justified the SPI filing. She also repeated her strong objection to Ohana's accusation that she'd used the SPI process as a vehicle for character assassination. At that point Ohana opened this AN/I thread.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I notified RSA about this discussion. I'll say up-front that RSA and I have clashed at Start-up Nation.

Checkuser isn't the be-all and end-all of sockpuppet identification. RSA swims and quacks like a duck, and despite the checkuser results I think her/his behavior should have been considered.

I personally feel your comments toward betsy were a little harsh. I agree she should have done more due diligence before filing the SPI, but (as I wrote) I think RSA's behavior is sufficient for a WP:DUCK block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Any experienced editor looking at RSA's contributions would recognize instantly that he's no new user. For that reason alone, the suggestion that Betsy was engaged in POV-based character assassination was just way out of line. This is certainly someone's sock. That said, I'll disclose that I was also opposed to RSA's views at Start-up Nation.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that editors must be "new users" -- in point of fact, some users edit as IPs, and some change names which is not running a sock in the sense of improper behaviour. Indeed, I seem to recall that many admins run additional accounts. The business that anyone who disagrees with a person is automagically a "duck" is weird and contrary to common sense. If one can not deal with people of differing views, then Wikipedia is a damn poor place to work. SPI is being abused on a regular basis with "duck" complaints - as far as I am concerned, as long as one person is not pretending to be two in a discussion, I really don't care all that much. Cheers to all, and have a quart of tea. Collect (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please give me a recent example of the SPI being abused? Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Look no further. This is one of the example. Filing 3 cases in 2 weeks is excessive and a form of SPI tag team (even if it's done unknowingly). Betsy filed the third case (on May 11) when the second case was checkusered 3 days ago (on May 8) showed no accounts connected to RSA is definitely nowhere near AGF. And the first case (on April 27) was created 1 day after RSA began editing is certainly biting newcomers. Now we're finally getting into systematic trend of the reasons why less new users are editing and getting more warnings. This case is just the tip of the iceberg. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohana, from your comments "even if it's done unknowingly" and "this case is just the tip of the iceberg", it sounds like you were straying rather on the side of making an example of Betsy in order to deal with something that you perceive as a wider issue. It seems to me that's not an SPI clerk's role. Would you consider striking the comments about character assassination? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My "tip of the iceberg" comment is referring to Viriditas' question of providing a recent SPI example, not towards betsy. Sorry if being unclear. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, but that's actually related to my point - that the "tip of the iceberg" comment seems to be an indication that the behaviour your comments to betsy were attended to address, was in fact the other part of the iceberg, i.e. not betsy's behaviour at all. I find that concerning.

Do you have objections to striking your comments to Betsy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur that Ohana's comments are out of line, especially for an active SPI clerk. AGF is not a suicide pact, and raising a concern about a sockpuppetry by someone whose POV you oppose is perfectly legitimate. If it were not, we'd have to put up with reincarnated banned users all the time without being able to take action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply by betsythedevine

I agree that SPI is not a weapon and my edit history shows that I rarely edit Wikipedia space at all. Red Stone Arsenal was not a particularly strong or active opponent at Start-up Nation; I filed SPI because I thought he was a sock of a particular user (Rym torch) who was flagged as a sock of NoCal100 based on some sekrit SPI method, which had to be done because Rym torch was editing in some particular way that baffles checkuser. But Ohana did not just allege, based on noticing conflict at one article, that I was using SPI to win a content dispute. He also made the PA that "I really believe that you use the sockpuppetry case to try and assassinate his character." [10] I would like that PA redacted. Also, if Ohana's use of the verb "caution," both on my talk page and at the SPI, implies that I was in fact using SPI to win content disputes, then it is wrong for Ohana to "caution" me in this public way. I am embarrassed to admit that I should have done a better job of preparing the SPI, and I apologize for the waste of everybody's time. Ohana's explanation of the steps that should be taken to file a good SPI were in fact very helpful, so for that I'm grateful. betsythedevine (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ohana: None of us takes much pleasure in admitting a mistake, but I'm afraid you really did make quite a serious error in judgment here. I see you went offline shortly after filing this report, but will you please take your earliest opportunity to bring this to a graceful conclusion by striking through the allegations everywhere you made them ( here, betsy's talk, the SPI, and your talk ) and issuing a brief apology on each page, as well?

I ask that not to be punitive at all, but only so betsy's detractors won't be able to dig up any of those pages in the future and use them to disparage her reputation. That would put an end to the strife here, and allow everyone to move on to more productive activities.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment If anyone doubts that those remarks if unredacted would be a source of delight to some, Mbz1 has already discovered and joined the discussion at OhanaUnited's talk page saying "Hi OhanaUnited, I'd like to congratulate you on being the truth-telling boy. You are right, the Emperor is naked, but will you be able to hold your ground :-) Good luck with this! Regards.-Mbz1" [11]. betsythedevine (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as though that comment by Mbz is a breach of the conditions set by Gwen Gale when unblocking her last December: "You've agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPIs and AEs for six months, along with going to only one experienced editor or admin if you have worries about the behaviour of another editor". RolandR (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Also of note is mbz1's attempt to remove another editor's AN/I comments. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Tarc and RolandR, Mbz posted on my usertalk page, not ANI/AN/SPI, and thus did not violate any terms and conditions. That's why RolandR's comment on Mbz's violation is blantantly false. RolandR, you tagged RSA's userpage with a suspected sockpuppet template and yet the result of this SPI case disagreed with your findings. You should be the first person to apologize to RSA. To all, I did not tarnish betsy's reputation, as another editor also agreed.[12] Betsy chose to edit under real-life identity rather than anonymous. That's her choice. When she discloses her identity, other editors reminded her that it "added inconvenience of having your on-wiki behavior tied to your real life identity". That does not grant her any more or less rights than any other editors to redact/strikethrough/censor comments which some people viewed as negative or the chance that "betsy's detractors won't be able to dig up any of those pages in the future and use them to disparage her reputation", which may not materialize at all. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really the point I was making. Regardless of the underlying conflict, mbz1 has been around long enough to know that deleting another user's post...esp in a high-profile place like AN/I...will do nothing but fuel the eDrama, not alleviate it. This has been a constant problem with this user; if there is a least desirable way to address a conflict or disagreement on the Wikipedia, mbz invariably picks the worst solution. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Mbz1 should not have removed a false accusation made by user:RolandR the way she did, but she tried to explain to user:RolandR why his post is a false accusation at his talk page, but user:RolandR removed her message with edit summary "Removed trolling". Only after this Mnz1 reverted a false accusation made by user:RolandR. I believe Mbz1 reverted the false accusations only because she was afraid that some administrator will act on it. It is surprising that user:RolandR still cannot understand why his accusations are false. Broccolo (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot speak for rolandr's motivations, but if mbz1 were to ever post to my talk page again, I'd revert it, unread. Editors with problematic histories tend to earn a reputation that is hard to shed. As for administrator's acting upon an accusation...well, I have faith that they would look into the matter themselves rather than rely solely on what one person says. That's about the end of what I have to say on the matter, I think. Tarc (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

rolandr's motivations are the same as yours which is baiting Mbz1 every time you see her user name. You are clearly biased against the contributor. Please stop this practice. It is getting tiresome. Broccolo (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Like several other editors, I continue to believe that RSA is a sockpuppet, even if CU has not confirmed that s/he is using the same IP as a known puppeteer. I certainly owe no apology. Regarding Mbz's comments, I can find no record of the alleged lifting of the block; all that I see is Gwen Gale's comment on the block log "has agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPI, AE for 6 mos, tkng bvir wrs to only 1 editor". That was dated 27 December 2010, so should not expire until 27 June. RolandR (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 has been busy contacting admins more sympathetic to her cause since then, so things may have changed. Regardless of that, I really don't think it is a good idea for Mbz1 to be commenting on a sockpuppet case arising from a dispute over an article currently subject to ARBPIA remedies, and reverting another editor's comments about that issue here at ANI, when Mbz1 is currently topic-banned from the PIA topic area. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1's bans for AN/I were lifted two months ago, and besides Mbz1 has never posted to AN/I even after the bans were lifted. It was user:Betsythedevine that copied Mbz1's comment left in other place. Mbz1 tried to explain it to user:RolandR but the user removed mbz1's message from his talk page, and left his false accusation to stay here. Broccolo (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As a purely practical and temporary consideration, can we just for the duration of this present discussion assume that everything Broccolo said above is correct, and not argue here over it? If anyone wants to dispute any of it, or feels any point he raised demands some kind of administrative attention, please just open a separate report for the purpose so we can keep this one on-topic.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think, as well, it should be emphasised that checkuser is not the be all and end all, although it does provide a useful indication in many or most instances. I have dealt with sockpuppets who are obviously well funded individuals who have access to a range of ISPs and/or travel - checkuser says no link and explains that position, yet the behaviour is obviously linked. That isn't the fault of the checkuser process to pick it up - it's just simply that the checkuser tool is only meant to do one particular thing, and the people operating it do their best with what they have. If the account(s) are behaving problematically, admins can still deal with them without a checkuser positive - as we've had to do on the Australian project once or twice with particularly determined violators (or just wait for them to horrendously slip up, which sometimes happens! :) Orderinchaos 07:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, other checkusers have commented publicly that particular highly-prolific sockmasters operating in the same topic area where Red Stone Arsenal ("RSA") made his contributions can't be expected to be caught out by our current tools. And progressively more sophisticated methods certainly do become available to evade checkuser detection the more resources someone has.

Since we've seen such a large upsurge of these day-use accounts (RSA edited for only three days) in this topic area lately, it's hard to escape the conclusion that someone has a new tech-toy they're breaking in. These accounts restrict their editing to short bursts or just a few days overall before moving on to the next account, to make it much less likely that behavioral evidence can be pieced together. We can't be certain with the our current tools, of course, but we'll never see an account that quacks more loudly in this particular way than we've seen here, with the Red Stone Arsenal account.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment user:Betsythedevine sees her role here as a fighter with NPOV and battleground behavior. In reality it is user:Betsythedevine who introduces NPOV to articles and exercises battleground behavior. For example with a single edit user:Betsythedevine turned a neutrally written article about a book to yet one more I/P related battleground. She later apologized for adding this quote taken from unreliable Palestinian advocacy site. Yet later the user filed a frivolous AE report, and frivolous SPI request. Isn't this too much for the user who sees her role here as being a fighter with NPOV and battleground behavior of others. I completely agree with the language OhanaUnited used in his closure of SPI request. Broccolo (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Stop! A point of order is called for at this point. I would ask all participants to please stick to the topic and help prevent this from becoming another I/P slugfest. Ohana has a right to a response about whether he was correct to accuse Betsy of a POV-driven attempt at character assassination, and support for that if he was in the right. Likewise, Betsy has the right to be heard and the right to an apology and retraction if he was in the wrong. Please save all the "look at the awful edit this opposing editor made" comments for a different thread, if you consider them egregious enough to bring up on AN/I. Don't lets derail this with off-topic grudges: Lets just try to calmly address and solve the issue that Ohana raised. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Fences&Windows just marked this thread as closed to discussion. But an extremely serious accusation has been made, that of intentional character assassination, and it's grossly unfair to leave it unresolved. It needs to be determined whether that accusation was merited or unmerited. I've returned it to open status for that reason, and on the basis of our refactoring guide ( since closing or hatting a thread is a form of talk-page refactoring ) which says, in part, "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."  – OhioStandard (talk)

Was character assassination accusation called for or should it be struck-through?

Please briefly indicate your preference below as either Support accusation or Strike-through accusation, with minimal follow-on comments after others' !vote:

Wording of proposal adjusted slightly in response to Heimstern's comments. 07:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strike-through accusation. I understand Ohana's frustration that betsy didn't know how to check for a previous SPI concerning Red Stone Arsenal. But his contribution history makes it immediately obvious that this was a very experienced user rather than a newcomer. Such short-term accounts have become so common in the I/P area that we should be encouraging SPIs rather than blaming editors who initiate them, even if they make a mistake in the process, as betsy did.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• While I'm sympathetic to the idea behind this section, what good is it really going to do? It's obvious that OhanaUnited has no interest in retracting his comments, as he continues to believe he is in the right. I suppose the section could continue if we're hoping to !vote for an exoneration of Betsy, regardless of OhanaUnited's decisions, but is that really needed? The one productive thing that might be considered is if a discussion with the checkusers might be in order to ask them to review OhanaUnited's comments and decide if he should continue as a clerk. And no, I'm not really sure how we'd start such a discussion, and as it's an isolated incident, I suspect little would come of it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is the question that OhanaUnited asked us all in bringing this here. Besides, I strongly suspect that this is just a simple misunderstanding that went south really quickly. My hope is that if all parties see that an alternate explanation is actually very plausible that it might still come to a calm resolution.

As I said on Fences' talk page, I absolutely understand how a checkuser who saw an SPI request for the same user three times in two weeks could respond with exasperation and assume the worst, especially when he'd seen a lot of duplicate requests recently. I'm going to continue this in collapsed mode, though, because I don't feel right about using so much real-estate to reply.

Good intentions on both sides?

Okay, I might have responded with considerable heat if I'd been in Ohana's shoes, too. I probably would have, actually. No responsible person likes the idea that SPI would be used to harass editors who hold opposing political views or to bite actual newcomers. Since that's the inference Ohana drew, it's very reasonable that he'd respond aggressively. Checkusers should respond aggressively when people try to use SPI as a weapon. I have no idea how often that actually occurs since I know little about SPI, but it must happen fairly often or Ohana wouldn't have responded as he did. The problem in this case is (sorry, Ohana) that he let his understandably mounting anger at the upsurge in SPI filings and repeat SPI filings boil over and convince him that he could mind-read betsy's motives, and that they were discreditable, when they were anything but. I saw somewhere that Ohana said he found it impossible to believe that betsy didn't see a prominent bar that indicates how to search for previous SPI cases. Well I used to teach user-interface design, and that comment puzzled me. So since I've never filed an SPI myself, I went to went to wp:spi and initiated a "test" case a short while ago, although I didn't save it, of course. I even did so for usernames that I know have had previous SPIs. Perhaps I'm being monumentally oblivious, but I didn't see anything that said "Wait! There's been a case about this just a short while ago!" I didn't see any indication of that at all, actually, and to my embarrassment I still don't know how to search for a pre-existing case. If betsy worked as a checkuser for the next month, maybe she'd be pulling her hair out by the roots and want to knock some heads together, too, at what I assume (from Ohana's comments) must be the rising level of SPI requests that really are POV driven attempts at character assassination to silence or drive off an opponent. Similarly, if Ohana could switch places with Betsy for the next month, he might have a better appreciation for how extremely common throwaway accounts have become in the I/P area recently, and how extremely frustrating that has been. All those articles are on 1rr restrictions, so these accounts come through and make very POV changes in heavily contested articles, requiring editors like Betsy to "burn" a revert if the long-established balance of POV in an article is be to kept roughly even. And since there seem to be literally ten such accounts on one side for every one on the other side of the political divide, these short-term or throwaway accounts are actually very effective at shifting that balance. Despite the lack of technical evidence found to implicate Red Stone Arsenal as just such an account, that account had all the hallmarks of this escalating pattern that we've seen repeated over and over in the I/P area these last several months. That has no doubt contributed to the frustration several of us have expressed at this whole mess, and at Ohana's likewise understandable frustration. For my own part, I'll ask Ohana's pardon for the extent to which I've let that slip into my own communication around this matter. (Please don't comment here since it forms part of a single post.)

Does that make sense to anyone, and most particularly, does it make sense to you, Ohana? Could you have possibly let your very understandable frustration cause you to miss this explanation and assume a motive that betsy didn't actually have? I'm not trying to blame you at all: As I said, I probably would have reacted just as you did, especially since you're so familiar with the SPI process that it must seem transparently simple to you. But is it possible that this is what happened?  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually does make sense to me - thanks for investing the time to write it! (Most of the stuff in here is pretty adversarial, nice to read a considered, well thought out piece trying to see both sides of the situation.) I myself have no idea how the new SPI system works, even though I've used it a few times and found it more efficient than the old. Orderinchaos 07:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Betsy Devine I am traveling around small places with not much internet, but thanks to OhioStandard for great kindness and to everyone who looked at my request. Taking the advice of OhanaUnited and others, I will now be closing this account I used under my real name. I did so because I thought such accountability was of benefit to the project, but I'm a bit sick of benefit to Wikipedia right now. I am accountable to myself, and I know I filed the SPI in good faith, and so does everybody else who looked into the matter, except Mbz1 and Broccolo. Fun times for them! Good luck with those admin tools, OhanaUnited, you do a heckuva job listening to third opinions. Which way to the door that says "Right to vanish"? betsythedevine (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Try the instructions at WP:CLEANSTART. Your situation is exactly why we have that option. I don't blame your decision, I don't have the courage to even try to edit under my own name. -- Atama頭 19:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question, I believe, Atama. And it's not Betsy who needs the clean start, it's every admin who saw all this and turned the other way.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

concerted web campaign versus UCSD professor

A professor from UCSD whom I will not name has come under attack for having allegedly had a web page associated with his lab contain a possibly offensive racial comment.

There is an active web campaign to recruit user to edit wikipedia: "Read the same topic: the students, UCSD events of the battlefield has shifted to wikipedia. Need help" "Just don't mention mitbbs. PLEASE!!!!" suggesting cut and paste comments and pages where such comments might be effective.

Half a dozen articles describing the incident have been created and mostly swiftly deleted. The ones I am aware of include:

• UCSD Kubiak "chinaman" issue
• Clifford Kubiak
• Clifford Kubiak's Lab Rules
• UCSD Kubiak Lab Rules Incident
• University of California Anti-Chinese racism

Because the URL's of these pages are posted on the web, the talk pages are repeatedly recreated, such as here, with comment "The exist of this page can help people better understand how Prof. K****** discriminates Chinese and all about this thing."

• Talk:UCSD Kubiak Lab Rules Incident

The articles provide no notable or neutral independent sources, are written in a way to state allegations and opinions as objective fact, and treat a subject which deal with the now non-existent webpage of person whose notability has not been established. These articles fail Db-web and Db-attack.

In conjunction with this, there is a web campaign suggesting a letter writing crusade [13] and suggesting people visit various wikipedia pages visit wikipedia. There a large number of recently created single use accounts. Edit summaries suggest that the user involved believe they are justified in their edits because they are fighting for Chinese rights. (I am not an admin and cannot give difs to deleted pages.

This matter needs administrative attention. There should be a way to have such articles deleted as soon as they are identified, and single-use accounts and IP addresses involved with this issue properly addressed. μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this sound like a case for adding to the title blacklist? --Rschen7754 00:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried to edit the last incarnation of the article to make it somewhat neutral and less of an attack, but I encountered strong push back every time I tried to rephrase things neutrally, or introduce sourced balancing statements. No doubt this will die down in a few days, but for now these articles are being created and recreated by new editors who may not to have encyclopedic goals at heart. There are significant BLP issues here, particularly with the direct and indirect attempts to tie the professor's name personally with the offensive language, despite his statement that he was unaware of it, and despite the lack of any sources claiming otherwise. At the same time, the topic really isn't notable per WP:NOTNEWS. Nobody will care about this in a month, still less in a decade. I don't know what the answer is, but there is definitely a problem. (It *might* be possible to write a neutral article on this event - there is some sourcing, including one short article in the Union Tribune. But it would be bound to be deleted at AfD on notability grounds, so why bother?). Thparkth (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I would comment that regardless of attempts at neutrality, which I believe is not possible in this case, the subject specifically fails WP:WEB, given that the matter at issue is a single non-notable web page now no longer in existence.

Be aware that there are now personal attacks from apparently recruited IP users appearing on user talk pages regarding this: [14] [15]

There's a line from The Big Lebowski that's just dying to be quoted here, but apparently this is a serious matter so I'll try to restrain myself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Dude, the Chinaman is not the issue here! -Atmoz (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've temporarily protected the titles listed above and their associated talk pages. If there is still interest in this a month from now, then perhaps it will actually be notable and there will be appropriate sources for a non-news, non-attack article. (If not and more attack pages are created, they can be protected for a longer period.) --RL0919 (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I feel a bit bad for Discospinster. His talk page is turning into a bit of a battleground by the SPAs and IPs. Singularity42 (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• The man is unquestionably notable by WP:PROF and must have an article-- he holds the Harold C. Urey Chair in Chemistry as UCSD, one of the major US research universities. The citation counts for his papers in G scholar range into the thousands: 1450, 660, 452, 272. The only problem is not over-emphasising this extremely minor difficulty. It would be possible to suppress it via BLP, but as an alternative, we could simply link to the page on his own site, [16] where he gives his apology. As he wrote it himself, it can't be seen as an attack page. I shall write the article tomorrow. I think it should be protected for a while, but I do not want to protect something I write myself. I consider Stwalkerster's action deleting as CSD A7 a page that contained merely "Clifford Kubiak is a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at University of California,San Diego" is an egregious error, I suppose trouting is in order, though I am bothered enough by it to consider asking for desysop if there is no apology forthcoming. . If we delete a BLP, when an article contain mainly scandal, that's not just justifiable, but laudable, and necessary, but it is not justifiable to delete an article with this not mere claim, but easily sourced demonstration of significance. I'm not sure whether it was done in recognition of the BLP problems in other versions. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Making no judgment on the validity of the deletion, it does have one advantage. All history including any troublesome editing that would need to be revdel'd will not appear when a new article is written. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the deletion was a valid deletion by A7 - "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools),[4] or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" - emphasis added. Not all professors are notable, and there was no indication as to why he was notable. Is he notable? Probably so, but the article didn't make any claim as to why. --Rschen7754 08:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I hate to sound like this, but I'm not seeing exactly what I did wrong. Maybe the professor does meet notability stuff, but as far as the article stated, they were some professor at some uni I've not heard of (maybe cos I'm not American, idk). The only thing the article said that he did was write a set of lab rules, and posted it on the web. I don't see how that indicates the notability of this guy. From what I can see, the article as it was exactly matched the criteria set out under WP:CSD#A7, and all I did was apply a policy - and if it came back in the exact form that it was when I deleted it, I'd probably be looking to delete it under A7 again. I'd love a better explanation from DGG about why he wants to desysop me. I'm not sure what else to say actually... [stwalkerster|talk] 13:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Historically, a professorship has been considered enough of an assertion of importance by itself to satisfy A7, when discussed at WT:CSD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Urgh, searching through the archives has come up with several discussions on the issue. This (IMHO) looks to be an area where we could have endless discussion on the matter, I personally don't think a professorship means anything other than they're teaching at a uni, hence doesn't assert any importance or significance. The sheer fact that this is has been discussed and is further discussable means the entire thing probably ought not to be dealt with at CSD. I'm sorry I even touched it. It'd be useful for future reference if stuff like this could be documented somewhere (other than talk page archives) so others don't fall into the same trap as I apparently have done, especially since the only place I can actually find information on this is the archives of the talk page. While we're talking about it, are there any more apparent "exemptions" from A7 which seemingly aren't mentioned anywhere other than the archives of a talk page? It'd also have been nice if someone had poked me on my talk page about disagreeing with the deletion and having a chat about it there, rather than just getting a notification that it had gone straight to ANI, wanting my head. The avoidable stress it's caused me has kinda ruined my entire day. [stwalkerster|talk] 15:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

He holds a named chair appointment at a major research university. (Criterion 5 of WP:PROF) He is unquestionably notable. With that said, there was nothing in the original article which addressed that at all, and I don't have a problem with the previous deletions (in fact, due to the egregious BLP violations contained in their histories, I am quite happy to see them gone). Stwalkerster doesn't need to be de-sysopped, although I'm a bit surprised that he has never heard of the University of California, San Diego, which is ranked 14th globally by ARWU. Horologium (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that sysop is not yet in order, & I apologize for saying something so strong, but what is in order is a careful re-reading of WP::CSD before doing any more speedy deletions. I re-read them myself every month or so to make sure I don't drift from the norm. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD:A7 says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Just stating that a person is a professor is not a credible claim in itself, so an A7 deletion was not out of line. Now, if it had stated that he was a named professor, that would have been an assertion of significance invalidating the A7. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"I agree that [de]sysop is not yet in order"?? I hope that's an understatement. — Satori Son 18:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

... and I do re-read that sort of stuff on a regular basis, at least once every two weeks or so (unless I don't do any deletions in that time period, in which case before I start deleting again). The problem here doesn't lie in changes to WP:CSD, but in various things that are agreed upon on some talk page somewhere, but then never mentioned on the actual policy pages, but yet people like me are somehow supposed to know about them. [stwalkerster|talk] 19:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that it would be possible to write a neutral article about this notable professor, but I think practically that doing so today, or in the next few days, would be an exercise in frustration. There is an active Internet campaign intended to potray him as personally racist, and the new and anonymous editors who are taking part in it are generally more interested in making their point than in understanding Wikipedia BLP policy. Kubiak will still be notable in a month from now, but those campaigning against him will have moved on. It might be a good idea to wait... Thparkth (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and write it. The campaigners will do what they do best, and the article will be semi'ed because of BLP violations. You don't have to do it yourself; plenty of eyes on it by now. Favonian (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to preclude any wheel warring concerns: If anyone writes a draft article in the next month that shows notability and is not an attack page, I will gladly move it to Clifford Kubiak (currently full-protected for a month) and change the protection, or another admin can do it if I'm not available. --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I recently started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of California Anti-Chinese racism. Initially, I didn't think it was that related to this discussion topic. However, I'm now wondering if that article will serve as the starting point of a neutral article, either in the current article, or split off on its own... Singularity42 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I created an abuse filter for this: Special:AbuseFilter/201. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• It is not as if the only issue in Stwalkerster's deletion of Clifford Kubiak had been Kubiak's own person notability or lack thereof. There is much more going on here. From MITBBS Chinese language English translation:

"Just created one, put his lab rules up, but the wiki tells me was too short, and who has more information."

"you can copy and paste"

"who still does not help us"

"you can also copy and paste"

"Just don't mention mitbbs. PLEASE!!!!"

• Comment King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ deleted my article. I have nothing to do with MITBBS. CallawayRox (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is with the nature of the material, not whence you learned of it. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ accused me of working with them! "I think it is more important to thwart the efforts of mitbbs." CallawayRox (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If you make the same controversial edits the mitbbs folks do, you'll be lumped in with them. Doesn't matter if you are "working with them" or not, if you're pushing the same agenda you can expect the same result. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What about WP:AGF? CallawayRox (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

so if it is reported by other media, make it more important? Here it is.[17]. Why wiki users have to decide something unless media did something, don't we have a judgment of right or wrong ourselves?--Yeahsoo (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:OR for answers to your question. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• An article about the professor would be in order, if it's neutral, not a coatrack, and scrupulously verified. An article, or article section, about this one incident which has been taken out of all proportion, is certainly not. Suggestions that people should be desysopped for enforcing WP:BLP, one of our most important policies, are quite absurd, and I am glad that DGG retracted his. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

See also these edits [18] to Chinaman and this block [19] of Chinaman (term). μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

More personal attacks from Anglo Pyramidologist

Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who racked up a remarkable 4 blocks in April for personal attacks, is carrying on where he left off with 'the constant vandalism by the "anti-fascists/anti-BNPer's/far left wingers" (Snowded, multiculturalist etc)' and 'quite clearly they were added by a biased anti-BNPer who is deceitfull linking to stuff that cannot even be accessed and verified'. I think it might be time for another enforced wikibreak? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

- Vandalism on the BNP page was already posted here less than 1 week ago and i had several admins agree with me that there are disrputive users on the BNP page. I've not personally attacked anyone, all i've tried to do is work with other users in improving the BNP article (yet anti-fascists/far-leftists etc keep vandalising it/reverting edits). Looks like you are just starting up trouble. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

-Please see multiculturalist's history page where he has numerous warnings about vandalising/making disruptive edits to the BNP page. This includes one edit/comment he left calling all BNP members "nazis" - which he recieved a warning on his talk page for. Also look at his name. Do you really think someone with the name 'multiculturalist' is going to not be baised against the BNP (a nationalist party who oppose multiculturalism and immigration?). Despite having 6 or 7 warnings about disruptive edits/vandalism to the BNP page he has never been banned from making further edits. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglo, this isn't far from what I've blocked you for before. Assigning epithets to other users is not going to go over well, nor is focusing so intensely upon their possible motives for editing. Concentrate only on content. You'll find things a lot easier that way. lifebaka++ 14:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Labelling and pigeonholing other editors is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not epithets, you can view the user pages mentioned where they self label themselves as 'anti-fascists', 'socialists' etc. I don't see how by pointing this out is personal attacks. The fact is there are a whole load of self admitted BNP haters (view their own pages) who have far-left socialist etc views yet they are allowed all over the BNP page. There are clearly problems with neutrality. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In the same way that you self-label as a British Nationalist and a BNP-supporter? Please take a look at WP:COI. You also seem to not understand WP:RS, per this edit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

AP also needs to look up the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. Even if the allegations about POV and biased editing were true (just for the sake of argument, I am not saying it is as I have not looked into the matter), that kind of editing does still not constitute vandalism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

- As i have pointed out view the user 'multiculturalist's page where he has had repeated warnings for vandalism. For the past few weeks on the talk page he has been calling BNP Nazis/racists for which he was reported and recieved warnings. I'm only on the BNP talk page to get the ideology box updated. Currently it is incorrect. The BNP are not fascist or white nationalists. If they were i wouldn't have joined them. The ideology box is insulting to all current BNP members/supporters, its biased and incorrect, and that is why i want it to be updated. Please note: it was me who got the 'holocaust denial' tag removed from the BNP ideology box about a month or so back. I then recieved a message by a mod apologizing that it had been up there for many months when it was a false claim added by an anti-BNPer as a smear. My interest in the BNP article is merely to make it neutral and reflective of the party and their position/policies. If it wasn't for me the holocaust denial smear tag would still be up. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"While parties such as the National Front or British National Party have attempted to appropriate national symbols to their primarily racist cause..." "British national sentiment". British Journal of Political Science. 29 (01). 1999. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And, for the record, "Since 1999, under the leadership of Nick Griffin, the BNP has made attempts to modernize and has tried to conceal its more esoteric ideology, such as holocaust denial..." "White Backlash, 'Unfairness' and Justifications of British National Party (BNP) Support". Ethnicities. 10 (1): 77–99. 2010. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

- Holocaust denial has never been a policy or position of the BNP. This is why it was removed from the ideology tag box a month or so back. What personal members believe or write is irrelevant to the position and policy of the party. Several Conservative MEP's for example are personally eurosceptics, but you would have to be mad to then post or claim the position or policy of the Conservatives was anti-eu. We have had problems on the BNP page before where people were linked to facebook posts and other nonsense which has nothing to do with the policies of position of the BNP. I also note in the last week these inappopirate facebook links were removed by an admin (thanks to me again). Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If Sarek or Serpent's Choice were referencing Facebook, your argument might have merit, but they were quoting published works. Anglo Pyramidologist, if your purpose is to whitewash (no pun intended) topics related to BNP, you may as well move on. As long as there are reliable sources supporting what's in the article, it's going to stay, whether or not it conflicts with your personal beliefs. You very clearly have a conflict of interest with these subjects. -- Atama頭 19:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see my talk page. I have several users agreeing with me that the BNP ideology box needs to be updated. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Having checked I can see one, along with the IP with who you edit warred. We also have the same pattern of false claims as before (ANI are on my side when a subject has just been mentioned). Personally I can't see this editor ever changing and it might be an idea to try a topic ban for a period as opposed to escalating blocks --Snowded ^TALK 05:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

- Yet it is you snowded who is attacking anyone or their edits on the BNP article. You are a self-labelled "anti-fascist" on your userpage, and anyone who wants to make the BNP article more neutral you call a pro-BNP supporter, while multiculturalist calls them nazis or racists. Looking at your history on the BNP article in the last month shows you have made no contributions, just about 20-30 reverts of other peoples content. I;m not sure what your obsession is with the BNP. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mods can also take note that snowded stalks my contributions. In the past view days he has posted on 2 or 3 articles i set up and just attacked them. There is no way he would have found those article randomly, he is just stalking my posted articles and attacking them to wind me up. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Indent your posts, please. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

AP, I expect more than one person watches your edits. You've shown no evidence that he is hounding you. Your talk page does show one user who seems to share your political sympathies, not surprising he agrees with you. I'm not sure which articles you claim Snowded is 'just attacking'. I found White Amazon Indians, a not very good article where he added a notability tag, but I don't see that as an attack (and he didn't add it to White Aethiopians which should be 'Ethiopians' by the way, looking at the sources). In fact,he's only edite 6 articles that you have edited, and only one article that you created, not '2 or 3' if by 'i set up' you mean created. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

- Yes, nonsurprisngly both articles concerning white people or race (those are the only he commented on mine). Also viewing Snowded's history shows he only edits the unite against fascism page, the BNP or english defense league. Snowded seems to have an very unhealthy obsessesion with race + and racial topics. I wouldn't mind if he contributed to helping these pages, but he seems to have a political agenda and just reverts peoples edits. Like i said view the BNP article and Snowded's history on it, he's never contributed all he's ever done is revert peoples contributions or criticise posters he thinks are pro-BNP. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That is far from the truth. See Snowded's Top Namespace Edits. His top three articles are Knowledge management, Philosophy and Wales. None of his top hundred seem to be about race, and only four or five about fascism. He is not the editor with a "very unhealthy obsessesion with race + and racial topics". RolandR (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I hear a WP:BOOMERANG in flight? Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean this? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, except in this case the kettle's one of those shiny new chrome ones. GiantSnowman 22:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

- The difference is I add articles or information and contribute on race based or political pages, in contrast Snowded does not contribute, he only picks debates with people who don't hold his far-left wing views and then starts to label them (like multiculturalist) - which might i add is ironically rather fascist. To see a typical example of this view the unite against fascism talk page. Or if you view the BNP history page you will see Snowded has never contributed. All he has ever done is revert people's edits and he calls other users 'pro-BNP' who he doesn't agree with (see the talk page). While the user multiculturalist labels people who want to make the article more neutral as nazis (again view the talk page and his own talk page where he got several warnings). At the end of the day you have to ask why you are here. I'm here to improve articles or add articles, and i continuelly seek to improve the BNP page. Snowded in contrast is only on the BNP page to stop it being updated because he has a biased political motives and views. Again you only have to view the BNP talk page to see Snowded's biased posts against the BNP, yet he never has recieved a warning. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglo Pyramidologist, you seem to be under the misapprehesion that there is something wrong with being biased against the BNP. There isn't, in the same way that there is nothing wrong with being biased against the clap. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all. Anglo - I monitor a series of articles associated with the far right in order to prevent them being used as propaganda machines. I'm not the only editor to do that and its all a part of maintaining a NPOV. You have been constantly asked to provide references for your assertions, and in the main all we get are BNP statements and photographs of people at BNP events. Those are not reliable sources. Oh and yes, given your track record I do from time to time check out other articles you are editing. --Snowded ^TALK 07:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it quite annoying, that Anglo continues to refuse to indent his posts. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

- what normal people use wikipedia to 'track the far right' and stop them becomming 'propaganda machines'? You self-admit you have a political agenda which when it comes to the BNP article is a huge problem and you have no interest in improving the article. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

'there is nothing wrong with being biased against the clap' , of course not however the problem is becomming obsessed and sitting all day on those wiki articles. Snowded sits all day on the BNP article reverting peoples edits. Given the fact he openly admits he has a political agenda against the BNP and other far-right groups then i think he should be removed from the article or atleast get reviewed. Snowded has no good intentions with the BNP article, he's only on it because he hates them. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I'll repeat what GoodDay said, please indent your posts. Secondly, what Snowded actually said is that he wants to keep the BNP page as fair and neutral as possible - stop trying to twist his words to satisfy your own agenda. GiantSnowman 14:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Many editors track subject areas that interest them Anglo, not sure if they are "normal people" or not but then I wouldn't like to site in judgement. What matters is if they follow wikipedia rules in the way they edit. You have supplied no diffs to support your various allegations here. You have a track record] of blocks of personal attacks and harassment, and from your comments above you haven't learnt from them. --Snowded ^TALK 14:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

- And you have a personal history of labelling/abusing/smearing people on the BNP talk page (mods feel free to take a look). Anyone who doesn't agree with your personal political views you call a BNP 'sympathiser' or 'pro-BNP' while multiculturalist calls them 'nazis'. If anyone should be blocked it is you. The fact you also above admitted you are only on the BNP page to 'patrol right winger posters' further reveals your biased political agenda. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please Anglo --Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

'Many editors track subject areas that interest them Anglo' - so what is your obsession with the BNP, a party you openly admit you oppose and do not support? Is it normal for people to be obsessed with things they oppose? Its seems to be deep insecurity. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The BNP are obsessed by immigration, something they oppose. I guess they're all deeply insecure as well, then... GiantSnowman 17:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Another lie. Yawn. In there last 3 manifesto's out of 80+ pages only 2 pages are on immigration policy. The conservatives, ukip and labour on theirs covered tens more. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE indent your posts, properly? GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This section is pointless as its clear my edits regarding the BNP ideology box is never going to be improved. I've wasted enough time with this. The biased far-leftists/UAF/communists/anti-BNPer's/labour supporters can continue to control the BNP article. Truth is truth, most people i know who have read the wiki article on BNP acknowledge that it is a biased piece of propaganda written from a far left anti-BNP perspective. Even more embarrasing is its sources (facebook and other smear sources) The article doesn't fool anyone. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if most people you know are, like you, supporters of the BNP, then its is not surprising that they agree with your negative opinion of this objective account. Most people I know think that the BNP are lower than vermin, and have a d8fferent opinion of the article. RolandR (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Even your average vermin knows to indent its posts properly. It's ironic that AP's posts continue to lean to the left. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As AP has self-identified as a BNP member or suporter, these two comments approach being a personal attack.

Roland and Bugs, you're both better than that. Please don't do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume the reason he won't indent is just to be obstinate. So I don't see any issue with ribbing him about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As i claimed above i'm no longer posting/editing on the BNP article. I tried all i could to get the changes i proposed implemented, but no one wants to update the BNP page more neutrally. Every other nationalist party on wikipedia are not smeared as fascists or white nationalists. What their articles state is that the media label them this, but that they themselves deny the labels as smears. Please see Jobbik. Why can't the BNP page be like Jobbik's and more neutral? Please view the jobbik page open paragraph if you don't understand. Basically the BNP page should open like theirs i.e that their opponents and media call them fascists but that they deny this as a smear. Why is this on every other nationalist page but not the BNP? I would like an admin to answer.Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple Anglo Pyramidologist: The BNP are fascists. The only people who seem to think otherwise are their supporters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when are political parties free from criticism though? In the United States (specifically Florida), where Wiki's servers are located, it's certainly not the case. I am very biased against BNP of course, but I mean some of the company they keep (they apparently also have a relationship with Germany's National Democratic Party who I dislike as well for obvious reasons) makes it so I cannot not be biased against them (though in editing the article I would have to be). This bit right here btw: "Truth is truth" The overwhelming view among the RSs about BNP is that they are fascists or at the very least white nationalists, and so that's how you have to treat it in the article. Wikipedia's about verifiablility, not one's version of the truth, and you should not go against that just because you don't like the article's content. Remember that we are not required, and afaik, not supposed to basically change the info the RSs themselves put out just because we think it will make the article more neutral, rather we find info from the RSs and use it according to the weight of the views. The idea is that so long as we follow the sources as closely as we can, we have maintained neutrality as best we can (because the sources don't have to maintain an NPOV etc etc). Also, if the concensus is against your changes, there's really not much you can do except try a better policy-based argument. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Block of User:Omer123hussain

On Saturday 14 May 2011, User:Omer123hussain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was checkuser-blocked indefinitely by User:Timotheus Canens for sockpuppetry.

Even before looking into the allegations as this is the first block this user has received and they have made lots of valuable contributions to the project including writing articles like Spanish Mosque, Old City, Hyderabad and Amjad Hyderabadi in a month - as well as numerous other contributions. After looking at their contributions last Saturday it was quite clear that out of the four users who Omer123hussian was accused of socking with one of them listed Omer123hussian's contributions on their talk page, and had a very similar name. Secondly there was an editor User:Googly1236 who had only edited inside their own userspace. This left two users, User:Woodenmetal and User:Mujahid Ahmad although only one of them had made edits outside of article space. This is covered in more detail at User_talk:Omer123hussain#Looking_at_this_again.

As you can see the blocked behaviour isn't really particularly serious, so the block duration then becomes even more troubling. In an attempt to fix this I have also contacted the blocking admin User:Timotheus Canens and the checkuser User:jpgordon on their talk pages without achieving a positive result. So clearly escalating it here is needed at this point. Unblock requests have also been filed - and Omer123hussian has accepted they behaved badly.

If a comparison is useful on Tuesday 17 May 2011, User:BabbaQ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was checkuser-blocked by User:HJ Mitchell for a week for sockpuppetry. Even though the crime was significantly more serious as it involved votestacking to post additional content on ITN still User:Omer123hussian hasn't been unblocked. The fact that these two blocks had such different durations comes across to me as highly problematic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Googly1236 claims to be the brother of User:Mujahid Ahmad and was never used to edit outside his own userpage, and User:Omer123hussain123 only made one article edit other than a deleted article, so is hardly egregious sockpuppetry. Looks like User:Woodenmetal was a short-lived sock. Not sure about User:Mujahid Ahmad, either a friend or a sockpuppet and also short-lived. I agree that indef block is harsh, unblock now I think as he's admitted Woodenmetal was a sock. Fences&Windows 19:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Omer123hussain123 may have done only one article edit other than a deleted article(s) but the SP was used for canvassing (of total 20 live edits 11 edits were done on User talks Requesting for the edit involvement for the article Aisha. This shows that this user is well aware of policies of canvasing and knows how to avoid them i.e. by operating SPs, I once more suggest that this user may be SP of much older one & we may have to widen our scope of investigation to include other SPs. The User initially didn't admitted anything but was in denial mode, it only did partial admissions when several check users/admins/editors provided proof of the users actions, detailed discussion can be found here, before taking any decision please refer to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omer123hussain and subsequent discussions.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing isn't enough to warrant an indefinite block. Given how the user introduced themselves and their username its blindingly obvious that its the same user. If I setup the account Eraserhead2, stuck my contributions on its talk page, and went and asked people for help if someone seriously thought they were a different user from Eraserhead1 it would be very difficult not to assume they were a fool.

Given how little he understood policies initially - and he certainly needed help to get started - I highly doubt he's an older account. Additionally you should assume good faith.

I would presume the reason he knows about talk pages and talks to other people is that when initially he made mistakes I used his talk page to explain what he was doing incorrectly, once you've figure that out why wouldn't you use other people's talk pages as well? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Where did he admit to Woodenmetal? T. Canens (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

To quote "i had been accused of only one SP User:woodenmetal, the others are not for me, and i agree i helped him to create this account as he is my room mate and new to WP (as i had told previously)" and also "i promise that it will not repeat in future by me", given he claims its his room-mate, and thus would use the same computer we should assume good faith. Additionally he has accepted that his behaviour hasn't been ideal here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty much irrelevant that someone else wasn't blocked indefinitely (and by the way, that wasn't a checkuser block; only checkusers can do that) for abusing multiple accounts to feign consensus; if I'd discovered it first, I'd have just indeffed that other user outright, since I've got little tolerance for breaking that aspect of the basic social "consensus" agreement here. As far as assuming good faith is concerned, that generally stops as soon as bad faith is demonstrated; and using multiple accounts to game the system is exactly such proof. That being said, my only input into this case has been to verify the one only thing that checkuser can really verify -- that multiple accounts were using the same IP and that their identifying information was identical. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not because policy should be applied consistently. Both blocks were backed up with checkuser evidence and both blocks should be applied consistently. Having such gross differences in block terms is a disgrace to the project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps; the correction in this circumstance would be to reblock the person who was incorrectly given so much leniency. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

His "roommate" who (1) edited the same article to make a revert 26 minutes after the same revert from him, and (2) used the same style of edit summaries? AGF is not a suicide pact. T. Canens (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this really matter? It could be true that he was on Wikipedia and his friend asked him to help setup an account.

We asked the guy to tell the truth not to come up with a story that would satisfy you. You cannot with any justification block someone indefinitely because their story isn't the one you want to hear.

In fact if I was on Wikipedia when my friend came over who wanted to setup an account they might well notice and remember they wanted me to set it up, that's how social interactions work. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

....and go on to participate in the exact edit war you happened to be in 20 minutes ago, all by pure happenstance (and replicate your style of edit summaries, too?)? Let me be frank, I don't believe that he's telling the truth, and therefore I'm not going to unblock him. T. Canens (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all I really appreciate User:Eraserhead1 for investigating those accounts which is believed to be Omer's socks. Secondly I'd like to add that I have come across this user contributing constructively here. I have interacted with the user and he took every criticism as a piece of advice to improve on his contributions. Given that he may have been in conflicts and has used these accounts as his socks, it does not really call for an indeff block of his account. May the blocking admin of Omer123hussain Timotheus Canens explain how the 1 week block is justified for User:BabbaQ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) given the fact that he used his sock accounts for much more serious crime? It's also worth noting the lack of any admin response to pleas/queries posted on User talk:Omer123hussain. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 09:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes Tim. Friends often have similar interests. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the edit summaries aren't that similar Omer makes far more spelling mistakes in his. They are of the similarity that you might get if one user was showing another how something works.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

do we really need to go to an RFC/U or Arbcom to solve this. The block is wildly excessive even if Omer is 100% guilty as charged. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, because it was an intelligent block. Let me just assume you're correct about them being friends. Then WP:MEAT comes into play. Tim didn't just do this block on his own. He consulted with several other clerks and admins first. You have yet to have built consensus against the block, and quite frankly I disagree with you. If consensus was shown otherwise, then sure, the unblock would happen... but until then.... And no RFCU will change that (and an arbcom case would just be thrown out because it is wholly inappropriate). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

How was it an intelligent block to give someone an indefinite block for a first time offence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously guys, having a consensus based blocking system is very silly, all it means is that whoever has the most mates here gets unblocked and whoever doesn't have mates doesn't - that's extremely classist, and misses basic reasonable tenets of justice, which involve punishments being proportional to the offence, and that they are consistent with each other. In the UK if a judge gives a disproportionate sentence it gets bumped down at appeal.

I'm not expecting full consistency, but something does need to happen. Assuming a week is appropriate for User:BabbaQ the appropriate block for these actions is probably 2-3 days, anything up to a couple of weeks or so would be OK with me, as while that is a bit rough and ready, it is at least vaguely fair.

With regards to protections, which I am much more familiar, if someone made an indefinite block, where a 2-3 day block would suffice then any challenge on WP:RUP would result in the page being unprotected - subject to a brief discussion on the protecting admins talk page - but if the arguments presented were as weak as those presented here the page would be unprotected. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I've requested that Shirik back up his claims with something substantial, but assuming that doesn't happen and assuming no-one else manages to present a substantial justification for this block it looks like Arbcom is going to be the next stage. Arbcom for an unblock request. Jesus Christ Wikipedia's user blocking processes are broken. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to bring the case to arbcom, though until you have identified at least one administrator that is dissenting in the interpretation of policies, I think your case is premature. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Tower4Sitz

Only edited one article, a while ago, and then for some reason his last two edits were really hurtful jabs directed at one of the FAC reviewers. It bothers me, so I don't want to do the blocking myself. He has less than a page of contribs, it's easy to access. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• User:Truthkeeper88 is a pretentious little missy who needs kid glove treatment and smelling salts at every turn. Poh! Why doesn't she fold it up and waddle home? All I did was give her some "straight soup". Big deal. Tower4Sitz (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've indef blocked for the disruption and abuse -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, self-killing troll; leaving nothing but the fresh smell of pine. HalfShadow 23:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Stinky socky troll, too. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Tower4Sitz is a sock of banned editor ItsLassieTime - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. This editor has a long history of serial copyvio and plagiarism problems. Per WP:BAN I reverted their edits at Jack and the Beanstalk, which has been reverted back. I'd prefer an admin take care of this given the comment above and the comments on my talk page this evening, [20], [21]. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It's rather ironic for a female dog to be calling anyone else a "b*tch". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • FYI, I just blocked User:NewHouse4533 who sure looks like another ItsLassieTime sock. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I was hoping that would be my first, but you beat me even to reverting it. Thanks for the protection, BTW. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Care to try for Protobaltoslav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
          • No I think that person happens to have been caught up in the maelstrom and is genuinely trying to work on the page. Anyway, thanks to everyone. Given the behavior exhibited by ItsLassieTime, I'd like to suggest that all the articles they've worked on be stubbified. Checking and scrubbing the pages is much too time-consuming and they become aggressive when their edits are reverted. I don't know how persistent copyvio vandals are dealt with and don't know if this is the venue, but it's a discussion that needs to be had somewhere. My request for help on the CCI talkpage has been ignored, and frankly with a new article just nominated to FAC yesterday, I haven't the time to deal with this. Also, would appreciate if someone semiprotects my talkpage since this person obviously won't leave me alone, [22]. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What usernames do you want surveyed? MER-C 13:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• MER-C asks the million dollar question. Is there a list of usernames recently used that need to be updated on the CCI? This is a WP:CSD#G5 article as well as a serial copyright infringer, and deleting or stubbing contributions is generally a really good idea with that combo. (Oh, and semi-protection is on, Truthkeeper88. Feel free to let me know if the problem returns.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the list:

• 736StIves (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• NYFernValley (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SuccotashA130NV (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ShushLibrarian (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• CortlandAve (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DogBiscuits4MissMitzi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MyFavoriteBook (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tower4Sitz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• NewHouse4533 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Also, MuZemike asked me to update the CCI but I don't know how and and asked for help on the CCI talkpage a few days ago, but no response. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not heavily watched, I'm afraid. And since I've been scrambling with my new job, even less so. :) If this isn't updated by somebody else before I get to it, I'll run the tool myself this weekend. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I added NewHouse4533 to the list. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to keep documenting recent edits: this, this, and this were all edits made to articles I've brought to FA by new user HomeComingQueenl1942 (talk · contribs). I've made and SPI report here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Since Truthkeeper88 is being harassed routinely by LassieTime, and that is interrupting her FAC work, it would be most helpful if admins would watch her talk page and offer to help her deal with this, which is likely to be an ongoing problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Added to my watch list -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have it watched too, though at this point I'm sure someone else will jump on any problem before I intervene. But it shouldn't hurt. -- Atama頭 01:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks: you might add my page to that watchlist as well. [23] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. 736StIves, SuccotashA130NV, CortlandAve, DogBiscuits4MissMitzi, MyFavoriteBook and NewHouse4533 have no surveyable contributions and I cleared out the only edit of ShushLibrarian. MER-C 02:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yay! You rock, MER-C. Nothing new there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat - Bob Newton (footballer)

Bob Newton (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I realize the BLP policy is to generally err on the safe side with negative information. However, the information in this article is sourced. Not sure whether to consider this "well sourcd" or not. I opened a discussion on the BLP noticeboard. That said, someone claiming to be Bob Newton has made a legal threat (not directly at me) on my talk page.--v/r - TP 16:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, I also opened an SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bobthenewt as it appears he is using multiple accounts and an IP to spin the article in a more positive fashion.--v/r - TP 16:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this person the subject of one of those "superinjunctions" that came out of the UK recently? Seems to me I've heard the name in that context. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about the superinjunctions, but I've blocked under WP:NLT. Clear legal threat. He will have to sort this out through normal Wikipedia channels or use legal action, can't do both at the same time. --Daniel 16:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, not heard of a Bob Newton in connection with any injunction. 86.146.22.108 (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the idea, isn't it?  ;) ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 09:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) As far as I was aware the only football player with a super injunction has been named and aledgedly according to the BBC his last name rhymes with 'pigs' so I don't think that it's a problem with another super injuction. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I just said on the talk page. One key would seem to be to look for the guy who died in 1978, David Wiggett. All the sources I've seen in google either parrot the wikipedia article or simply list his cause of death as "auto accident", with no details provided. There's something fishy going on here... I'm just not sure where that fish is. It's unfortunate that someone claiming to be the article's subject poisoned the well by threatening to sue, rather than perhaps shedding some light on the matter. Do the British hide the facts about drunken driving convictions? If not, where can they be found? Is the drunken driving story a hoax? Or is there a coverup going on? FYI, the Newton red-link also expunged the allegation from the Wiggett article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Questionable behavior

Resolved

 – all blocked. Favonian (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on, but User:A Whiter Shade-of-Pale Guy, created today, is creating a bunch of other accounts. See log. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that one. It's clearly banned user MascotGuy. Favonian (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's MascotGuy's MO, all right; his usernames are very distinct, so you can't miss him once you know what to look for. Take it to AIV on sight. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#Petition to have flagicons returned to fighter pages

This is the subject of a vote-stacking WP:CANVASSING effort by WölffReik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to change MMA-related articles to include flags, in acknowledged violation of WP:MOSFLAG, on the grounds that the people who edit MMA articles the most want the flags back, and the consensus of the rest of Wikipedia doesn't matter. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I had already left a message for the editor about this here but didn't hear back from them. I'm guessing the editor was unaware of WP:CANVASSING but in any case I don't believe the editor has contacted anyone else since my message. That said the discussion about flags at WT:MMA has been raging long and hard and we would all appreciate some outside perspective on this if anyone would care to take a gander. I've been involved with the discussion for about two months now and like almost all of the editors involved I have no idea where to go from here to get this issue resolved. SQGibbon (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment There are currently two RFCs on flags running at WT:MOSICON. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, you don't want flags in any of those bio infoboxes, particularly British MMA bios. There's too many devolutionist out there, who'd try to block usage of the Union Jack. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection request

Protection Request Can someone please reverse any recent changes if necessary (this version is good) and protect the Chinaman dab? It is being vandalized/pov pushed by User talk:Dwarm12345, a new single purpose registered account. μηδείς (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The usual warnings/WP:AIV/WP:RPP processes seem sufficient to me - I don't think there's any need for an ANI report -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

After several warnings, Dwarm12345 continued to edit-war, so I have blocked them for 48 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

F. A. Hayek POV pushing

A single-purpose account (Seventyad (talk · contribs)) has recently added POV about Jewish influence and Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine to the Friedrich Hayek article. I've tried to revert this, but the user adds it back all the time. I would appreciate any appropriate administrative action here. Thanks. --Eisfbnore ^talk 15:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

- F.A. Hayek's Jewish origin is no secret and it should be included to the knowledge concerning Hayek and his ideas. There is no reason why Hayek should receive special treatment in Wikipedia, even if someone might think Wikipedia as a mere libertarian project.

I emphasize that Hayek's contribution needs to be evaluated against his personal history as well, to gain a proper insight. Economists do not need any special treatment compared to any other professions, social scientists among them. Weighing Hayek's contribution against his own background sets his contribution to a broader contribution, Milton Friedman and Alvin Toffler etc. among them.

To treat Naomi Klein's contribution as worthless or polluted is a violation against her, and our intellectual honesty. Her work does fulfill all criteria of scientific writing. To be honest, she has done far better job in this field than Hayek. At the same time we have to recognize that Klein shares Hayek's background in some key respects, but does however use her intelligence to contribute to the human knowledge about economics, Hayek's work among them.

In fact, Klein is among the relatively small number of people who has courage to expand the knowledge-base regarding Hayek. Eisfbnore does not increase knowledge on the subject, but on the contrary, safeguards the restricted knowledge. This is no project of keeping the myths alive, but increasing knowledge.

Thus the editing Eisfbnore has done acts against the common goal and has a strong political motivation, even if he/she projects this aspiration to Naomi Klein. - Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seventyad (talk • contribs) 16:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I'm seeing WP:3RR activity, but more importantly, definite WP:OR issues with the material Seventyad is attempting to include. No reference to a verifiable source. IMO that overrides any WP:NPOV concerns. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Seventyad could be blocked for 3RR if he reverts again. He has added to the article a claim that Hayek was Jewish. Even a quick Google search comes up with many pages which assert the opposite, some of them citing a quotation from Hayek in Stephen Kresge and Leif Wenar, eds., Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue, page 62: "..as far back as I can trace it, I evidently had no Jewish ancestors whatever." The claim of Hayek's Jewish origin does not seem to be in Naomi Klein's book; it appears to be the creation of Seventyad. If we can dissuade Seventyad from re-adding what appears to be contrary to fact, then we are left with an WP:UNDUE question as to whether Naomi Klein's theory about the influence of Hayekian economics is important enough to cover in his article. Also the following passage which looks to be some kind of conspiracy thinking on the part of Seventyad: "This position of Hayek in Great Britain, as well as in the United States - similar to Milton Friedman's position - meant a fulfillment of one of the Theodor Herzl's goals presented in "Der Judenstaat": the increase of Jewish contribution to politics through the political welfare of Jewish intellectuals." This assertion also does not come from Naomi Klein; it seems to be a genuine original research by Seventyad. Per WP:BLP Per WP:NPOV a repeated reinsertion of this unsourced personal theory by one editor might be blockable in its own right. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC) +fixed my incorrect comment about BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The user now starts to remove sourced content. Although Hayek obviously is not a BLP (not sure where you got that from EJ), such edits are harmful and disruptive and Seventyad ought therefore IMHO to be blocked. --Eisfbnore ^talk 21:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hayek's personal background is no secret. I hope that you seek the answer to this open-minded. In the defended article is mentioned that Hayek could not return to Austria. The immigration to United States by economists of Jewish origin is a well known fact. He is certainly not the only one. The Chicago economics is written mostly by economists of Jewish origin, among them f.e. Milton Friedman and Franco Modigliani. This has constituted a problem for the Chigago economics itself.

What comes to Naomi Klein's book, yes, she does not comment straight on this question. In this you are right. Nowhere I have, however, claimed that it is included in Klein's book. The claim that Naomi Klein has written a theory about Hayek's influence on economics is an exaggeration. She has corrected the commoly held views about Hayek's ideas, but in my opinion no theory, unless you count the very possibility to read-between-the-lines with the aid of external information on the subject. This does not mean that her contribution is irrelevant in the context of Hayek.

"Also the following passage which looks to be some kind of conspiracy thinking on the part of Seventyad: 'This position of Hayek in Great Britain, as well as in the United States - similar to Milton Friedman's position - meant a fulfillment of one of the Theodor Herzl's goals presented in 'Der Judenstaat': the increase of Jewish contribution to politics through the political welfare of Jewish intellectuals." This assertion also does not come from Naomi Klein; it seems to be a genuine original research by Seventyad."

No, I refer to a particular book by Theodor Herzl. In the case you prove that Hayek was not of Jewish origin, it certainly does apply to Milton Friedman. I refer to Naomi Klein's book, and to the view she made by referring a Times article on him. The position of both Hayek and Friedman changed dramatically during the right-wing governments both in United States and Europe. This is a fact that has to be included in the article on Hayek, and certainly it is documented in Klein's book as well. In order to understand Hayek's theory, you have to understand Friedman's contribution to monetary and fiscal policy. Klein has also pointed out the utilization of expectations, in the Chicago school economics Hayek belongs in addition to his adherence on Austrian view. Nowhere here is a conspiration thinking, just a remark that Herzl had hoped this thing that Hayek and Friedman fulfilled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seventyad (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If there's a book that makes that statement, citing that book should be trivial, yes? And doing so will meet the requirements of WP:V, which is what you're NOT meeting by simply inserting the material without said citation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Drubner

I am not sure what to do with this article. It has attracted edits by the subject of the article and people associated with him (who apparently want to control its contents), on the other hand some of the content in the article was poorly referenced, or even obviously unencyclopedic. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly there's a COI concern with the article (and I've flagged it as such). I'm all for giving them some time to improve the article. In its current state, it could be BLP prodded (no references) and could almost be speedy deleted A7—but again, I'm for giving it a chance to improve before going down one of those roads. —C.Fred (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Any reason why the Talkpage has remained unused (and indeed uncreated)? GiantSnowman 19:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How about the version before the mass removal? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That version was massively unreferenced, and it 100% correct to remove unsourced information. GiantSnowman 19:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - I can see plenty of glaring BLP problems in that version. I think waiting may be the best option, though I might also have a hunt for sources myself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 19:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Article sent to AfD. GiantSnowman 20:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

RevDel and possibly block needed over User:Mizardofpie's posts at BLPN

User:Mizardofpie has restored previously suppressed content to the BLP notice board, after the same content was speedied when posted as an article and then reposted to BLPN. The content is weird (but unimaginative) defamation/ridicule of what appear to be his middle school classmates, identified by name and schools attended. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the revision in question, and blocked the editor indefinitely, as no good would have come out of letting him/her continue to edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy" involving terrorists

The article on Payoneer claims there is a "controversy" regarding the company, and this argument is used to keep the article. But the sources cited say no such thing, and the coverage of the company is very brief. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) No admin action is required now, please wait until the AfD runs for 7 days (so about 4 days left) and is closed based on evidence provided in the AfD itself. GiantSnowman 22:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

But the articles on MetaBank or DZ Bank, which are also mentioned in those news reports have no mention of this "controversy". Payoneer has 20 words more coverage because their rep said they are "cooperating with the authorities", while the other companies reps were said to have declined to comment. Don't tell me this makes it a controversy, but it just so happens that WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What GiantSnowman is (correctly) saying is that this is not the venue for resolving that. The AfD is. 28bytes (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. You have a content dispute WP:NPOVD which has a good chance of going away on its own when the AfD closes. If it doesn't go away through the AfD you can propose a change on the article's talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS for the changes you'd like. If that doesn't work, there's dispute resolution, e.g., WP:SEEKHELP. Msnicki (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

Personal attack by OrangeMarlin

When I tried to ask a question about neutrality policy, I was subjected to a personal attack by User:Orangemarlin:

• He said that I "use polemics and rhetoric"
• He accused me of "personal attacks" (but gave no example because there's no example to give)
• He said, "I know your ultimate goal" (implying I'm opposed to WP's goals)

All this takes attention away from my policy question, which is about how to add perspective to articles when other users don't want me to.

Note that I am not claiming that a disagreement over what goes into an article is a violation of rules by anyone; rather, I am asking how I can be a better contributor.

And just before this, OrangeMarlin called me "ballsy" in his edit comment [24] while on the talk page:

• He accused me of "using the Conservapedia rules on verification" and "Trying to bring Conservapedia policy to Wikipedia" (something I've never heard of - I'm only interested in Wikipedia when I ask about Wikipedia policy, and isn't off-Wikipedia activity not to be mentioned on talk pages about articles?)
• He accused me of "attempting to conflate political debate with scientific debate" (although I had clearly made reference to disagreements within the scientific community)

I would just like to ask a question about Wikipedia policy, without being maligned with personal remarks. Please look into this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason Republicans disagree with Global Warming facts are because they are pandering to the extreme right wing of their party in hopes of getting elected. What other questions do you have? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Passing comment. There's nothing wrong with being "ballsy" and there's nothing wrong with saying someone else is. I think you're reaching a bit, Ed, to get this sanctioned as a personal attack. You've worked with OM for a long time and by now you ought to be able to discuss things with him. That means taking the rough with the smooth, and trying to de-escalate where possible. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)