Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:05, 27 February 2007

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header

Community ban request on User:GordonWatts

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Proto says, he's not malicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not Wikistalking, just defending a friend. - SVRTVDude 02:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GORDON'S OBSERVATION:

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

Thus, it pain me that editors who

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some numbers

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

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

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

Total edits: 4210: Avg edits per article: 12.38

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages space: 562 (13.3% of all edits)

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

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

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts: 78
• Misplaced Pages Talk:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts: 29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion to close

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

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

Users endorsing this, sign below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   MartinGugino: 24,641 bytes

   GordonWatts: 109,579 bytes

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

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

9. First choice, good idea. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
10. First choice. Sarah 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
11. First choice. rspeer / ???ds? 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Never mind. I can imagine Gordon leveraging his daily epic incoherent rant on Terry Schiavo, being sure to take up as many words as everyone else in the discussion combined. This would not be good for Misplaced Pages. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
12. First choice. Leebo 11:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Third choice - even one post a day like this is too many. MastCell 05:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Probation / mentorship

Users endorsing this, sign below

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

Community ban from articles and talk pages related to Terri Schiavo

Users endorsing this, sign below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community ban

Users endorsing this, sign below

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

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

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

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

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

6. Second choice. Kyle Barbour 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Second choice as of now. The way he's continuing to act on this page is a prime example of "exhausting the community's patience". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

   "The way he's continuing to act..." Could you please be more specific, rspeer / ɹəədsɹ ? You seem to be insulting me, but not specifically telling me what your complaint is. (However, based on your edit summary: "Okay, I can learn from what's staring me in the face: one post per day from Gordon is one too many.)" you seem to be saying I post too much. If you are suggesting I post too much, then I have proof for you here that you are telling a lie, but I wonder if you'll look at the proof -you seem set in your ways. I think you should state your complaint -or else withdraw it. Oh, one more thing: Could you please certify that you've actually read all this page? (Cf: my comments, which do NOT comprise more than half -as elucidated elsewhere -and the comments of others.) When you certify you've carefully read ALL these comments regarding this RfBan, then we'll talk. Until then, I do not feel you are qualified to opine.--GordonWatts 09:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

   No. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Refer to ArbCom

Users endorsing this, sign below

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

Auxiliary straw poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so there we have it - many of you are liars and Gordon runs a newspaper that should be included on wikipedia pages - all clear evidence that he can learn from people are saying to him and does not just repeat the same points over and over again. Yes sir. --Fredrick day 10:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"many of you are liars" Perhaps: I concur, I won't mince words - I make a good case for that. "and Gordon runs a newspaper that should be included on wikipedia pages" I must respectfully dissent: While I have my opinions (I do have right to have an opinion), I am not promoting "my" newspaper, rather, if you will look at this post, I am merely offering an opinion on all smaller websites as sources -not mine per se. "repeat the same points over and over again" Well, if you don't want me to repeat myself, then simply read the material the first time -and certify that you've done so, and then we'll talk, but please don't cheat: You're on the honor system here.--GordonWatts 10:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Weighing up the above, it is clear to me that the community mood is that Gordon Watts should not edit Terry Schiavo articles directly, should not link or suggest links to his own sites, and should restrict himself to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day. If Gordin is not able to abide by this restriction then a ban will be sought, either through community processes or through ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

User:Jonathan ryan indef blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Community Ban Request on User:Classicjupiter2 and associated sockpuppets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment One example of a valid community ban due to sockpuppetry would be that of User:PoolGuy, see his talk page for reasons.--w 08:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Are we supposed to be checking this page periodically?

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

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

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

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

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

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

User abusing marking edits as minor?

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

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

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

Ok, I've informed the guy. Seems like a decent user making edits in good faith. Shrumster 13:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Template:Minor. --Quiddity 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan related categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar

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

Possible Posting of Thesis/Term Paper

Hi, not sure if this is the appropriate board but I just recently stumbled upon this article - History of Isabela Province. Checking the history, it seems that the whole thing was put in in one go, and it raised my suspicions. Regarding the formatting and everything, it appears to be some term paper or something of the sort. Could you guys check it over? Oh, and what's our official WP policy on posting possibly-unpublished term papers like this? W:NOR? Shrumster 13:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

When a strangely formatted article shows up in one big chunk like this, I tend to worry that it's been copied from another source--in other words, it's a copyright violation. If you do a google search for sentences from the article, you'll find that at least some of the text is copied from other sources (or possibly has been copied by them). The whole article seems to be on www.molinu.org, which I can't reach, but a Google cache is here: . That might be a mirror of the WP article, though, I can't tell what molinu.org is. Have you tried talking to the user who created the article? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

molinu.org looks like a mirror. It has a link at the bottom of the article to the "full article", which links to Misplaced Pages. —Centrx→talk • 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it. This shows that some part of the article was a copy-paste job. Although I can't find the rest, because the bulk of one section is plagiarism, the rest might as well be.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article candidates

Misplaced Pages:Good article candidates currently has a large backlog that needs involvement from members of all WikiProjects to assist in clearing the nominations that pertain to their topic. Each project's members are better at assessing articles according to the guidelines of their projects. Please assist in passing and failing articles according to the GA criteria. There are instructions on the candidates page if you are new to the task. By helping to remove the backlog, we can continue to improve the quality of our articles within Misplaced Pages. --Nehrams2020 09:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User removing context

Dcandeto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing context, like the country from Jacksonville Skyway, and claiming that "Misplaced Pages norm" is to not include it. Please assist. I posted this on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (assistance) yesterday but it had no response. --NE2 13:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

NE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding unnecessary information where it is not customary to do so. Very few articles, unless they are about placenames (cities, counties, census areas) themselves, include the country if they include the U.S. state or Canadian province. The Misplaced Pages norm is, in fact, not to include it. Referring to my edits as vandalism is silly and false. dcandeto 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say your edits are vandalism? As I said on Talk:Jacksonville Skyway:

It's a standard on Misplaced Pages. Not everyone lives in the U.S. If it's "especially abnormal for names of places in the United States", it's only because U.S. editors assume everyone knows the names of all 50 states.

Please desist. --NE2 16:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you used the {{vandal}} template. It is absolutely not standard to include the country name if the U.S. state or Canadian province is included. It may not be standard to exclude it, but it's not standard to include it. dcandeto 16:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

template:vandal is something I've seen used in many cases to give a convenient set of links, and was not meant to imply that you are a vandal. It certainly is standard to include context; see Misplaced Pages:Lead section#Establish context. --NE2 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The linked article basically says that the proper amount of context is the proper amount of context. It's really vague. dcandeto 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

NE2: try using {{User6}} instead, it gives a lot of good info links and doesn't carry the connotation of "Vandal", or if you want to use {{vandal}} try "subst'ing" it, so it just has the links. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, heck, {{userlinks}}, which is what Template:Vandal redirects to anyway. —Cryptic 17:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I use the {{user}} template, who needs all those extraneous links anyway? As for the inclusion or non-inclusion of countries, I think the both of you should just plain stop. It's really a meaningless argument because the country name should be in the linked to town article anyway. Contrariwise, it certainly doesn't hurt or damage the article in question to put in the country's name. So, in other words, you're both right and you're both wrong. My advice is to step away from the keyboard for a few hours and see the outside world, you'll feel much better for it. —Elipongo 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding 100+ external links

I've asked after similar cases at the Village Pump and have had only a couple of responses, so I figured I'd bring up the question here this time.

Yesterday Dsp13 (talk · contribs) inserted external links into more than a hundred articles to a site called WorldCat. WorldCat is arguably a useful, non-commercial reference site on various people, however its addition to so many articles tripped off some editors' spam alarms. Dsp13 tried to propose the site as the focus of a Wikiproject, but that seems to have since been deleted.

:That project proposal seems to be back now. —Elipongo 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My own feelings are these. While sites such as these can indeed be useful references, simply slapping up a link without adding anything material to the article bothers me. If I want to find a reference for adding to the article, I can find the link quite easily using Google, it doesn't need to be clogging up the External links section waiting for someone to use it.

I've heard the opinion in other cases that as long as it's a useful link, it should stay. In other cases I've seen all the links labeled as spam and deleted. I'd really like to see if there's a consensus on this issue so I, and others, will know how to react to these incidents. Thanks! —Elipongo 19:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already put my own views at Talk:Igor_Stravinsky. To summarise them:

• it would probably be possible for dozens of links to sites to be added to articles on the basis that although they don't support material in the article, they are of indirect use to someone researching the subject. As each one was added, however, it would become progressively more difficult to deny the case for the next. The end result will be a web directory tacked on to the end of the article. That, as I understand it, is the reasoning behind WP:EL, which aims to keep external links to a minimum.
• anyone requiring a listing such as for example library holdings of books on a particular subject will by definition be sufficiently highly motivated to find it anyway.

Just my 2p worth. Stephen Burnett 22:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with situations nearly identical to this one. The person adding the links may (or may not) be well intentioned but such links almost always are to be avoided. Links are to be kept to the minimum necessary, and should be carefully evaluated regarding their value to the article. Rapid-fire link insertion by someone with no prior history on the article isn't consistent with that. Raymond Arritt 01:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case, every possible book in a US library will warrant such a link--its the equivalent of a link to the ImDB article for each film, or to PubMed for every disease. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I've tried to explain my intentions in adding these links at User_talk:Dsp13#Worldcat spam, Talk:Igor Stravinsky, and at the project proposal. Here's my bloated tuppence. My general motivation was to facilitate cross-fertilization between Misplaced Pages (with over 200,000 biographies) and librarian's records about people (the Library of Congress Name Authority File has millions of person entries, each given a brief MARC description). First, from a reader's point of view, it seems desirable to have an easy way to pass from Misplaced Pages biographical articles to library holding by/about the individual. Second, from a 'semantic web' point of view, it seems desirable to connect what are in effect the two main publicly accessible anglophone authority files. They don't yet connect very well. As Jakob Voss has put it at Wikimetrics, there are cultural difficulties in encounters between 'semantic web people', 'library people' and 'Misplaced Pages people': 'they don’t talk to each other or don’t know each other or don’t understand each other'. (WorldCat Identities' links to Misplaced Pages raised some librarian eyebrows!)

Now, de:wikipedia are ahead of en:wikipedia in this regard: they’ve added over 20,000 external links between biographical entries and the German National Library. (Here's an example.) Why shouldn’t en:wikipedia do something similar? Previously, a technical problem was that the Library of Congress didn’t made it easy to move from their authority file to library holdings: WorldCat Identities, which uses the LC authority file as a backbone (though WorldCat is a union catalog, many member libraries use the LC authority files in cataloging) now makes something like this possible. Of course, different traditions in editorial culture may mean that what de: finds appropriate may never be felt appropriate in en:. Sorry for my own clumsy naivete in adding external links: I appreciate the concerns which editors (especially of major pages) have expressed about external link multiplication. I wonder, in the spirit of considering the experience of others, to know how de: justified their external links.

Shimgray has acutely identified serious problems with WorldCat Identities as it stands: although it’s a beta project, likely to improve, some of these issues may be unavoidable in union catalogs. So I'm also totally persuadable that adding a load of external links to WorldCat Identities is not the best thing to do. How, then, best to cross the divide between wikipedia and libraries as major repositories of biographical information? Dsp13 14:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Propose Indefblock of Buzzards39

I am proposing to have Buzzards39 indefinitely blocked for the following reasons:

• Buzzards39 is disclosing identities of user names and locations which is considered harassment in Incident 1,Incident 2, "The other goblin is Paul Drockton, AKA "Mormons 4 Justice", a formers Farmers manager who has been on a jihad against all things Farmers the past several months over a dispute dating back to 2002" and "This guy is from Arlington TX. The same city and state I am live in today".
• Buzzards39 is a Farmers Insurance Agent, " I am an insurance agent who does sell Farmers Insurance products.", yet he continues to edit Farmers_Insurance_Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) all sections of it including criticism. He delete criticism and tries to justify it with excuses. I warned him about this but he continues to delete and justify criticism of Farmers Insurance.
• Buzzards39 is Single purpose account which his sole purpose is to keep others from writing negative information about Farmers Insurance, yet at the same time writes positive information about it conribs. He has been warned about editing a single article,"Last, you might enjoy looking up articles to do with other interests -- hobbies, home town, school, outside interests -- and see if any of those look interesting too."
• Lastly he is rude to me then he goes to an administrator and acts like a lost puppy who is a victim.
• Disclosure: I am responsible for most/all of information that is critical of farmers Insurance. Router 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• From a summary review of the issue, this is a very inappropriate request. Community bans or indefinite blocks are sanctions of last resort against inveterate troublemakers who have already been the subject of multiple shorter blocks. In this instance, there have been no obviously problematic edits by Buzzards39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that I can see and no previous blocks. This page is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department. It appears you two are in a conflict over article content. To resolve such conflicts, please use the dispute resolution procedure. WP:3O might be a good place to ask for third party input. Sandstein 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• • And an editor who does pretty much nothing but post links to gripe sites such as "fuckpaypal" and "farmersinsurancesucks" is in a poor position to suggest another editor is a single-purpose account. --jpgordon 20:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Jpgordon should disclose that he was/is a . Then conspired with Syrthiss to indefinite block me. With that said I propose a temporary block or severe warning to Buzzards39 for the violations that has and continues to commit. Router 22:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please don't include personal information about other people in your edits. Corvus cornix 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've refactored the offending info out. -M 23:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That personal information is on jpgordon's user page so I didn't think it was a big deal, but OK. Router 01:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, really. It's not like I try to conceal that I worked at eBay until five years ago. I appreciate the concern, but I make no attempt to conceal my real-life identity. But it remains a fact that Router's sole interest at Misplaced Pages appears to be to add gripe sites to articles. --jpgordon 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Jpgordon, lets not lie now. I have not added a Gripe Site since you and Syrthiss proposed indef block of me, that case is over and done with you do not need to rehash. I learned my lesson. Router 18:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't like being called a liar. Please, instead, call me badly mistaken; for whatever reason (arrogance, among others), I assumed that you, like others have sometimes done, continued the specific bad behavior I chastised you for. Please accept my apologies. I withdraw from this conversation. I've stricken out the mistaken comments; Router has my permission to edit them away if he wishes . --jpgordon 06:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• In regards to the alleged harrasment, I plead "rookie mistake", since the personal info that the honorable Mr. Router refers occured literally on my first or second discussion edit. If it is a big deal, then by all means, remove it. As to my edits, I can only say that I have tried to: 1. Stay within the lines on NPOV, going so far as to solicit admin review of edits that I have made, and 2. Striven for full disclosure as to any possible COI so that Wikipedians may see my work and comments and draw their own conclusions. My humble submission is that Mr. Router has not been quite so transparent about his reasons for interest. When information has been properly sourced, I have left it alone. But I am unrepentant for removing or altering content that is false or misleading, including my latest revisions. I would not want to revoke Routers right to good faith editing, I wish he would accord me the same privelege. Buzzards39 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. This request really jumps the gun. The community doesn't ban accounts that haven't even earned a single regular block yet. Read Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing and try Misplaced Pages:Dispute resoluton. Durova 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose banning, I don't see anything even close to that level yet. Requesting a ban is not a dispute resolution step. Seraphimblade 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I also see no reason to support a block, let alone anything like a ban. In fact, Router should learn that on Misplaced Pages we don't divide articles up into sections depending on the editors' points of view: that's a recipe for disaster in terms of WP:NPOV. This is an editing dispute, and I have seen inappropriate contributions from both sides, but with a little more attention to the article from the community, and some education about Misplaced Pages, everything should work out fine. Mangojuice 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I completely agree with Durova. This is way too sudden and not a productive means to settle your dispute. As suggested above, there are options at WP:DR to help resolve issues like this. A community ban is not something to place on such an unelevated situation.¤~Persian Poet Gal 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. As others have pointed out, you've got to make some good-faith efforts at dispute resolution before even considering a community ban. I'm starting to wonder if this page's header should provide firmer guidance about when community ban discussions are appropriate. We could take the wording from Sandstein's post above: "This page is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department. Community bans or indefinite blocks are sanctions of last resort against inveterate troublemakers who have already been the subject of multiple shorter blocks." --Akhilleus (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs)

Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) is up to no good again on Sweetest Day and various related pages on both here and on Commons, despite being blocked several times for disruption and being warned countless times on his talk page about not resuming the issue. His recent contributions consist of edit warring over previously-removed links to a Commons gallery of articles related to Sweetest Day (the talk page there contains much POV pushing), and in late January he was again POV pushing (here, here as "reverting sophisticated vandalism", etc.), though nothing was done. Almost all of his edits are to things related to American Greetings and Hallmark Cards, and he has a long history of personal attacks and accusing other editors of being part of a corporate conspiracy (see ANI links below).

Previous ANI discussions: , , , .

This user clearly has no intent to change his ways or otherwise stop pushing his POV, as he has come back again and again despite being blocked or warned. Therefore, I propose a community ban. --Coredesat 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I've had numerous, numerous dealings with this editor and was really close to filing an Arbcom before he took a break around the beginning of the year. The Commons thing is kind of a final straw for me because it pretty much cements the fact that Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) is absolutely dedicated to gaming the system to push his POV by going outside the Misplaced Pages space to circumvent the consensus here. As Coredesat (talk · contribs) stated. he is nearly a single purpose account here and without going into too much detail about off-Wiki matters, There is evidence out there that Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) could never be neutral about these topics; he has an axe to grind here. I've spent so much time pointing out to him why his contributions are POV that I'm fairly certain I would not be viewed as a neutral outside party to this. This could be considered an endorse if anyone wants to see it as such, though I completely understand if my opinion is discounted here.--Isotope23 16:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard needs some attention

The biographies noticeboard is backlogged at 184 reports, some of which haven't seen action since December last year. It would be good if some experienced editors went that way. Thanks. MER-C 07:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though many requests just haven't been closed as they should have been. I just closed the two oldest entries easily. Grandmasterka 09:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste move

Hi, is there a certain procedure, if a user continues to make a copy and paste move (see ) although he was pointed out to not to do this (see User_talk:Lawsonrob? Does this come perhaps under vandalism or disruptive edits? Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 14:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

I think you should revert it and give a more stern warning. If he keeps doing it, maybe post something to WP:AN/I rather than here. Leebo 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerks of all types need to be deprecated

I recently had an interaction regarding clerking which started a thought process which resolved last night. In January of 2006, the Arbitration Committee established the office of RFAR clerks. People were appointed into the positions. This effectively created a new class of users. That's possibly ok. We've got lots of different types of users here; admins, arbcom members, bureaucrats, etc. What I think now is problematic about this is that this new class of users gets a privilege to edit a particular area of the project, and (this is the really bad part) other users are banned from editing that area. This is inherently anti-wiki.

At first, this didn't seem to be much of a problem. Hey, it's arbcom, they need help, and they create it. Seems to make sense. Problem is, the idea of clerking is spreading around the project. We've now got clerks for a number of things. People have to apply to get permission to edit certain things. Only certain people are allowed to appoint people to be clerks, and there's no oversight of these actions. In essence, it's a great big whopping sign that says "YOU ARE NOT TRUSTED TO EDIT HERE". The most valuable aspect of this project is the encyclopedic content of it, and we trust anyone...even anonymous IPs...to edit there. Yet, we don't trust people to edit productively in certain other areas of the project.

This all might seem expedient; after all, we don't want to have to deal with people messing up certain "important" pages, right? But, imagine a Misplaced Pages that had clerking over far more areas of the project. Let's scale it up.

• RfA clerks; only RfA clerks can de-list obviously failing nominations, improperly formatted nominations, etc.
• AfD clerks. Only AfD clerks can close AfDs that are obvious keeps or no consensus.
• Stub clerks. Only stub clerks are permitted to create new stub categories following discussion on their creation.

Where does it stop? Where do we say "this is not right"? If it's a bad idea when it covers many areas of the project, it's very likely a bad idea when it covers only a few areas. These type of clerk roles are also only a step or two away from things like image clerks, who are the only ones who can upload images, and article clerks, who are the only ones who can create new articles.

In my own case (which has been amicably resolved), I was effectively banned from editing an area of Misplaced Pages. I now (still) have to get permission, via becoming a clerk, in order to edit there. Except, the clerk waiting list is very long. I made good faith edits in these areas, trying my best to help out. I didn't even know there was a clerk status. I found myself on the receiving end of some not so nice comments, and essentially told to get lost.

Now, I've been here a long time and I'm fairly impervious to negative turns of events; it won't make me leave. But, other users may not be so. The more we scale the role of "clerking", the more editors we are going to annoy and cause to leave because editors find out there is an 'elite' class, and in order to join it you have to sit interminably on a waiting list and get a nod of approval from somebody whom you do not know.

At Misplaced Pages, we have a basic set of instructions designed to be relatively easy to follow. We have codes of conduct. We have means of dealing with users who continue to step out beyond those borders. Why is it in those clerk areas we can not have a simple set of instructions and use our tools to handle those users who consistently step outside of those instructions? Why do we need a special class of user who is permitted to edit certain areas, and anyone else must get special permission? If our means of managing the most important and valuable aspect of Misplaced Pages (the encyclopedia content) is sufficient then it is more than sufficient for handling meta tasks currently being assigned to clerks , and clerks only.

We need volunteers. Without them, we are nothing. Putting up barriers to volunteer contributions is antithetical to our goals. Clerk roles need to be deprecated in favor of appropriate instructions and willingness to use current management techniques to handle users who consistently step out beyond those borders. --Durin 15:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You nailed it. Whatever useful work is done by clerks can be done without the concept of clerks, as you described. Just say no to instruction creep. Friday (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem yet. InBC 15:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting essay, but desperately needs wikilinks to back it up. For example:

• What other areas, besides arbcom, have clerks now? In other words, what, besides the slippery slope, is actually wrong now?
• What are the areas that non-clerks for those can't edit?
• Why did you personally get in trouble? I have a vague memory that someone screwed up a few closings, but that might not have been you - without a specific link or three, that could be wrong. --AnonEMouse 15:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have links to the various clerks pages at the bottom of User:NoSeptember/Functionaries. NoSeptember 16:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think clerks are a good idea, so long as others aren't banned from helping out. As long as they help out right, I don't see a problem with it. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If anybody may help out, anybody can act as a de facto clerk. Why is there a need for designated clerks in such a case? Either they have the same rights as other editors (in which case their "extra status" is not necessary) or they have more rights (in which case others are de facto banned from helping out in certain ways). So I do not understand your position. Kusma (討論) 16:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We can have clerks and "de facto" clerks, but at the moment only clerks are allowed to edit the pages. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why I got in trouble is unimportant (had nothing to do with closings). I am intentionally speaking in the abstract; should we have areas of Misplaced Pages that are off limits to people editing except for specific designated clerks? If clerks are a good idea, where do we draw a line and say that a clerk role is inappropriate for X? I have long held, and wikiphilosophy upholds, that there is no stratification of users at Misplaced Pages. All editors are equal, whether they be the first time editor or a bureaucrat, admin, arbcom member etc. The only types of editors we have here are those that contribute positively and those that do not. We trust those that do. Clerks create an exceptional class of users who are trusted in certain areas, effectively making non-clerks untrusted. This is anti-wiki. --Durin 16:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. Let me confine my remarks to Arbitration clerks. As you say, this office was established by ArbCom, and the clerks are the designated representatives of the Arbitration Committee. It is true that most editors can perform the technical aspects of being a clerk (opening and closing cases, mostly). However, I believe there are good reasons for having designated clerks. Arbitration tends to be contentious. Often, comments have to be removed or refactored, and participants tend to react badly if that is done by another partisan in the case, or even by an outsider they aren't familiar with. The clerks are editors who are trusted to do this, both by the parties and by the Committee. Clerks tend to stay associated with the cases they open, and are people to whom the parties can complain if they feel there is a problem with another participant's behavior on the case. The clerks are trusted by the Committee to give authoritative answers to the parties' questions.

That said, I have considerably deprecated the Clerks' office already. There is no head clerk; we coordinate activities through a noticeboard. I also rewrote the Clerks' page to specifically state that informal help is appreciated. Thatcher131 16:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Allow me to modify the above, to highlight my point:

"It is true that all editors can perform the technical aspects of being an editor (creating articles, uploading images). However, I believe there are good reasons for having designated creation clerks. Creation tends to be contentious. Often, articles have to be removed or refactored, and editors tend to react badly if that is done by another editor they aren't familiar with. The creation clerks would be editors who are trusted to do this, both by the parties and by the Misplaced Pages. Clerks would tend to stay associated with the articles they create, and would be people to whom the parties can complain if they feel there is a problem with another editor's behavior on the article. The clerks are trusted by Misplaced Pages to give authoritative answers to editor's questions."

• I know you didn't say the above, but such a stance is utterly repulsive. If it's repulsive for the mainspace, our most important and valuable area, it's equally repulsive elsewhere. Either we are open to all good faith volunteers or we are not. --Durin 16:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, parties involved in arbitration cases are frequently not open to good faith edits to their cases. On numerous occasions, parties or non-clerks have made technically correct edits (such as removing threaded dialog from evidence pages) that is reverted by one of the parties. The clerks often acts as buffers or moderators between parties. Thatcher131 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Then have an instruction that parties to an arbitration case should not make deleting edits or reverts of another non-involved party to that case. Editors can act as buffers. We trust editors to act as buffers to problems in the mainspace. --Durin 16:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Arbitration cases are typically where the open trust of the mainspace failed. —Centrx→talk • 17:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Right. Allowing any user not involved in the arbitration case to edit does not undermine that. Unless we assume that nobody among the editors is trustworthy enough to edit arbitration cases other than ArbCom and the RfAr clerks. --Durin 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Durin that designated clerks are inherently anti-wiki. Any editor who knows how to fix an issue on a project page that implements a Misplaced Pages process should be encouraged to be bold and do it, no matter on which page. Any editor who does that several times becomes a de facto clerk. Why do we need any formal confirmation process for this? Kusma (討論) 16:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See also this discussion and this other discussion where similar bureaucracy was declared as bad. Kusma (討論) 16:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A question for any clerk: All of the currently active ArbCom clerks spent months before becoming clerks doing a lot of "helper" work. Were your edits then significantly less respected than they are now as clerks? (Especially after the regulars recognized that you were frequently involved in many cases in a housekeeping capacity?) NoSeptember 16:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In ArbCom's case, appointed clerks have the advantage that they're reliable, so that ArbCom doesn't get too much of a backlog. I'm not sure whether that should give them exclusive entitlement to edit the pages. If there are strong indications that doing otherwise would be harmful, maybe yes.

But in any case, those are rather specific circumstances. I'm not sure I see any other "area" of Misplaced Pages where we would need clerks. If we do, we should probably stop. Zocky | picture popups 16:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole 'clerks' thing is the only time I have seen restrictions imposed on who (in good faith) can edit a page. I specify in good faith, as restrictions are placed all the time on vandals and edit warriors. I can understand why the clerks are there. They are there to handle the essential maintenance kind of stuff to ensure complex ArbCom cases proceed smoothly.

But are these people only doing so because it allows them the label of "Clerk"? Or is the label just a convenience for "people the arbitrators trust not to fuck up the 'paperwork' of ArbCom proceedings?" Clerks are not appointed through any kind of open community process. There is no RfClerk. They are a special case. Arbitrators, bureaucrats, admins, and any other strata of user are given their extra tools through an open and defined community process. But there's nothing stopping anyone posting to an Arbcom decision workshop, or WP:AN, or WP:BN. However, if helping with the arbcom processes is free to all, then it becomes open to people without the best of intentions, or even people with good intentions but an incomplete awareness of how things should be done, which from the outside can often (unfairly) appear as one and the same.

I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this. I can see the point of formal Clerks (big C) in ArbCom proceedings, but not anywhere else on the Wiki. I would suggest that other areas that are starting to "appoint" them should not be permitted to do so, as they are not the necessary evil that ArbCom Clerks are. I would suggest that any ArbCom Clerk who remonstrates with someone who helping in good faith has let their new "title" go to their head, and ought not to be assisting the ArbCom in such a manner. Proto ► 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• To requote you as I did with Thatcher's comments above, "if helping with the editing the mainspace is free to all, then it becomes open to people without the best of intentions, or even people with good intentions but an incomplete awareness of how things should be done, which from the outside can often (unfairly) appear as one and the same." In a word, OUCH! Again, I know you didn't say this, but the principle is the same in my opinion. --Durin 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Durin's conflict was not over arbitration clerking. I don't believe an AC clerk has ever treated good faith help with anything less than total respect, and in fact there is a certain user who makes minor corrections and other helpful edits from an IP address, whom I have told is welcome to do so openly. Thatcher131 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A somewhat surprising number of people don't seem to realise that WP:RFCU and WP:CHU now have their own clerks and clerking systems. So I'm filling you in. The former I can get my head around, the second seems wrongheaded. Moreschi 16:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. As noted above, I was trying to remain in the abstract about this. The three areas where there are clerks are WP:RFAR, WP:RFCU, and WP:CHU. I'd prefer to remain in abstract; is there really any good reason to have clerks at all? If the reason can't translate to the mainspace, I think that reason is suspect. --Durin 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Durin's concerns originated in a conflict with Essjay over comments Durin was making to applicants at WP:CHU that Essjay did not agree with. Thatcher131 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I'm about to be direct here. The conflict I had with Essjay resolved amicably and has NOTHING to do with the abstract point of whether or not clerk roles are a good idea. My discussions with Essjay served to get me thinking about clerk roles in general. Thus, it was a catalyst. But, it is not the reason I am bringing this up. I am most emphatically not attempting an end-around on Essjay to get the clerk role remove from WP:CHU so I can edit there again. Let's stay focused on the abstract point here. I believe it is fundamentally important. --Durin 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• In matters like these, it is simply incorrect to think that Misplaced Pages is run by the community. Hence I am not sure why this is brought up on the community noticeboard. >Radiant< 17:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless Jimbo personally established the RFCU and CHU clerkship offices, it definitely is the community that decides. Zocky | picture popups 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It is interesting that you should think so, but it is incorrect. Suggested reading material are the earliest archives of the clerk pages. >Radiant< 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oh my, they're really doing it. Perhaps we should split this debate so that we don't get side-tracked - i.e. fill the whole page with discussion about ArbCom clerks, whom we are obviously not going to abolish just like that. Maybe it would help if we all agreed to keep ArbCom clerks out of this discussion (on the basis that they're at least appointed by a legitimate decision-making body), so that we can concentrate on these other types of clerks. Zocky | picture popups 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Umm, checkuser clerks were established by a legitimate decision-making body (checkusers). Change username clerks were established by a legitimate decision making body (bureaucrats). --Durin 17:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, neither checkusers nor bureaucrats are not a legitimate decision making body, just like admins aren't. They're individuals that are authorized to use certain additional tools, nothing else. They can't hold a formal collective vote or discussion which excludes other participants. They're neither as a body nor as individuals authorized to decide who gets to edit what. Zocky | picture popups 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• To Radiant; I'm open to suggestions on a better forum for this discussion. WP:AN isn't it (which is where I first thought to go). This is a community issue. This is the community noticeboard. ? --Durin 17:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue is not in where it is discussed, the issue is that the people that make the decision are not involved in the discussion. >Radiant< 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if we assume that clerks are necessary for areas other than ArbCom, pages such as Misplaced Pages:Changing username/Clerks, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Clerks and Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Guide seem to introduce needless complexity and hierarchy. It's especially odd to see the sentence "Due to the low nature of actions required by CHU clerks, currently Essjay has appointed..." Essjay has appointed? How did one person, however involved with Misplaced Pages, become in charge of username changes? I'd support the elimination of clerks with the exception of ArbCom and possibly an informal system at RfCU. The current system seems to be far too unwieldy. ChazBeckett 17:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well other checkusers and other bureaucrats do interact with the various clerks, so this is a case of Essjay taking the lead (being Bold) and the others accepting the helpful assistance that that boldness has created. NoSeptember 17:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I guess what's irking me is the hierarchy that seems to exist, namely: Essjay > Head Clerk > Dual Clerks > Other Clerks > Editors. All this organizational overhead seems especially silly on the CHU page, which currently has one clerk note. ChazBeckett 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To cut to the heart of the matter, this post is inevitably brought on by the fact that Durin was acting in ways that Essjay and the clerk body in general thought were dismissive and hurtful to people requesting name changes on WP:CHU. The clerk body has never chased away volunteers acting in good faith with stick, in fact they have this nasty habit of mugging you to join their group - it's how I became a clerk :-) However, when users are getting scared away from the page by one user that is acting in a manner suggesting officiousness, it become damaging to the reputation of the project as a whole. This whole thing to me looks like trying to backroad Essjay's telling Durin to get off the page for this reason, despite Durin's call to the contrary. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh. The heart of the matter has nothing to do with my recent conflict with Essjay. I've stated this three times now. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing to do with this. This has to do with what I feel is the inherently anti-wiki role that Clerks have, and its effect on the community. Can I be any clearer? What must I do to prove to you that my intentions here are in good faith? What must I do to not have you toss this legitimate question into the dirt because you think it is hate based because of a recent conflict? Tell me, and I'll do it. Please. --Durin 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter what Durin's intentions are. We're discussing this now in an open forum and several people have raised concerns with the concept of clerks. Doubting Durin's motives at this point is likely to generate much more heat than light. Zocky | picture popups 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Amen. The abstract point is where I have attempted to keep the focus of this. My intentions are absolutely altruistic. I believe the abstract point is fundamentally important. The concept of a "clerk" or other similar title has been spreading on Misplaced Pages. I found myself doing it on a new project page that I recently created because I wanted to protect the work that had been done from well meaning editors who would quite possibly screw it up due to the detail effort required to update the page. My recent conflict with Essjay brought to light just how wrong-headed this thinking was, and I removed the concept of "clerks" from the page . Subsequent to that, I thought it important to bring up the entire abstract topic for discussion. The fact that it has generated so much discussion shows there is interest in this topic. It deserves discussion. I'm glad I raised it. --Durin 17:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Clerking was an issue in this discussion based on my refusal more than a week before the latest controversy came to a head. And bureaucracy has been an issue here since before the Esperanza MfDs. NoSeptember 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Zocky. And both Essjay and Durin were working for the best interests of that area of the project. Their quick and pleasant resolution to a slight disagreement is exactly what you'd expect from users who are putting the project first over their own egos or being "right". NoSeptember 17:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Durin's points are what is relevant; his motives for making them are not. Moreschi 17:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

More generally, I do think it important that clerk-creep be avoided. Clerks can be useful to avoid abuse of a highly specific process, but we are not a bureaucracy and should avoid superfluous hierarchies. The RFAR clerks are useful and do a good job, but the notion of clerks for WP:CHU seems...redundant. Maybe WP:RFCU I can get my head round, though for some the whole clerk notion clearly appeals as a power trip, which can have unpleasant consequences. Certainly any further clerking procedures should be avoided at all costs unless completely necessary. Moreschi 17:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you to ask a checkuser what he thought about clerking? I'm sorry if you can't wrap your head around the idea, but from my standpoint the checkuser clerks are absolutely vital. If they went away I think we'd shut the place down. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, but it does possess bureaucracies, and we shouldn't lose sight of the distinction. Mackensen (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

This abstract discussion is fascinating but I'm left wondering what, exactly, it's intended to accomplish. The administration of the encyclopedia and the encyclopedia itself are fundamentally different concepts and require different approaches. Here, we're talking about bureaucracy–paper-pushing. A bureaucracy has to serve two different groups: the end-users, who have a right to expect a consistent approach, and the functionaries (arbitrators, checkusers, and bureaucrats), who need to work with people whose judgement they trust. In effect, clerks are designated by functionaries to make their lives easier; by carrying out routine yet important jobs, leaving functionaries to work with the actual problems and not push paper.

The objection has been raised that this is un-wiki. Of course it is. Anyone who has spent significant time on this project is well aware of the tendency of users to balkanize, create personal fiefdoms, impose particular styles on articles and so forth. Wikis resist centralization and comformity. It would be a disaster, however, to treat our bureaucracy in the same fashion. People engaging the system should encounter a consistent approach, not a mess where every user decides they're going to handle a request this way or that.

It should be reiterated that clerks are carrying out tasks at the behest of functionaries. It is generally recognized that arbitrators are free to refactor the RFAR page as they see fit, and checkusers routinely do the same with RFCU. However, functionaries don't have the time to do this and do the jobs the community selected them for. This is where clerks are so incredibly vital. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just trust the general community do to that? Why create a hierarchy? Moreschi 17:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I've indicated some serious problems with that approach above. I would add that the nature of the task requires "regulars"–people who are going to stick to it for months at a time. In that way a body of knowledge develops that requires a cathedral, not a bazaar. Furthermore, selection permits the weeding out of those "power trippers" that you're concerned about. I'm not aware of any such problems myself. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that's true for ArbCom: seems unlikely to me that the same is true for RFCU or CHU. A constant supply of rotating people doing the same job would work as well, no? My point was that the very nature of the current procedure, where you put yourself forward, is likely to attract power trippers. You can hardly avoid that. Moreschi 18:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be great if the community could take care of everything by itself, but it cannot, so we do have hierarchies. If the community could handle everything itself we would not need admins, or crats, or clerks. InBC 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a strawman, that. Adminship and cratship involve technical features we clearly cannot trust to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who strolls along. Clerk responsibilities are surely entirely within the capabilities of the people who will know about these pages in the first place, with the probable exception of ArbCom. I still don't see the need for a hierarchy. Moreschi 18:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not the one who asked for it, either. Mackensen (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to believe that. The question isnt whether YOU trust the general editor population, it's whether the BUREAUCRATS do. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The community owns these pages, not the crats. If not, it's time we started getting worried. Moreschi 18:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've not read all of the commentary here in depth, so I'll restrict my comments only to the original posting. Frankly, I find the argument that we may someday have RfA, AfD, and stub clerks to be an argumentum ad absurdum--such positions would never be allowed by the community, nor has anyone but yourself suggested such implementations. RfA is an open-end process, moderated by Bureaucrats, though other users may, when acting in good faith, close snowball RfA's. Similarly, AfD is an open-ended process moderated primarily by admins, although other users are invited in limited respects to assist in this moderation. Stub-creating ... well, now you're just getting silly.

Clerks are really in no way bestowed with extra powers or freedoms, technical or political--they are simply a method of organizing administrative activities so as to ensure that all needed tasks of tedium are completed and so that effort is not duplicated. Yes, it is a title, but as we all know, titles are meaningless. In cases of clerks such as those of the ArbCom, CheckUser, rename requests, or open-proxy verified (which could itself be considered a "clerk" title), restrictions are placed upon who can serve as a clerk with regard to their observed ability to do a good job. If you're unable to verify open proxies, I don't want you to be making decisions regarding blocking my ip address as an OP. Similarly, if you don't know how the CheckUser or account rename process works, you probably shouldn't have the power to close requests, such that no CU or crat will ever see them, as they may well be valid requests. With the ArbCom, the clerks there are appointed as almost honorary members of the arbitration committee; I believe this to be well within their juristiction to do, and I would rather not have people with the power to decide what goes before the ArbCom and what doesn't (a power which AC clerks sort of have) if they don't have a clue. Ultimately, I see no problem with the social division of the "clerk"--I'm afraid that with the current size of the pedia, such distinctions will have to be made from time to time to prevent the incompetent from obtaining degrees of power which they shouldn't have, and to allow those with power to delegate duties onto others. You can't seriously expect Essjay and the few members of the ArbCom to do everything alone. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• If the offices of checkuser clerk and change username clerk had not yet been created and I had suggested that we could go on to create those, I would equally be told I am making a silly argument because we'd never do those things. Removal of RfAs from RfA for snowball reasons has been a contentious issue for quite some time. I could easily see a strata of users whose job it is to perform the menial tasks of closing out desperately failing RfAs; it is routinely the case that people who are doing it now get it wrong. I know; I've corrected a rather large number of these closings. So, it's not much a stretch. Same goes for AfDs; it is routine that AfDs are closed as no consensus and are hotly debated. Same goes for stubs; there's been discussion about renegade non-discussion created stubs for years. It's hardly absurd.
• The main problem here is creating barriers to contributing. Why are there 19 people waiting on Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Standby to help out in an area they are interested in? Why is it we must assume bad faith with those users that they are not capable of acquitting themselves appropriately there? Why must we create a special class of users who are allowed to edit there? THAT is what is absurd. I have to seek special permission to contribute? Why? That's senseless. If I appropriately follow the instructions given on a particular page, there should be no reason why I can not contribute there. Yet, there are such places where people are not permitted to edit unless they are in this special class of user. In doing this we create a special class of users who are above regular editors, who are trusted more, who are the few that have the privilege of contributing. This is fundamentally wrong. --Durin 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom was established by the community and Jimbo and given the powers to make collective decisions. Individual ArbCom members have no additional powers because they're on ArbCom, and they can't appoint clerks. We have no collective decision making mechanism for bureaucrats or checkusers and no policy that gives them the power to decide who can do what, neither accepted by community or created by Jimbo. This weakens the position of anybody trying to enforce it and inevitably causes conflicts. Zocky | picture popups 18:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume that what you say is true. The arbitration committee isn't required to use RFAR as a mechanism either, and may not in fact have the power to manage such a page. Does that prevent the page from being used? Of course not. In the same manner, checkusers created RFCU as a conduit for requests, but that wasn't ordained by the community and they're free to suspend/abolish it any time they feel it has outlived its usefulness. Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Both ArbCom and checkusers are required by policy to receive and handle requests. How they do it is largely their business, as long as it's within normal community standards. We're trying to discuss whether this is within normal community standards or not. The whole concept of clerks is clearly a violation of (or shall we say, exception to) of the wiki process, which is in itself a major cause of concern. Most of us agree that its advantages outweigh the drawbacks in RFAR. Many of us are disputing pr at least having doubts about the idea that the same is true for RFCU and CHU. The issue is usefulness to the project, not who gets to sit on which rung. Zocky | picture popups 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(This doesn't apply to ArbCom, but it does apply to everywhere else where clerks are used or may in the future be used) What a lot of people aren't understanding is that sysops, bureaucrats, checkusers, and so on, are just editors with more buttons, and they do NOT have the right to, without community consensus, forbid the general editing population from (in good faith and non-disruptively) editing a particular class of pages. A permission flag does not come with WP:OWNership of anything, nor does it confer the ability to ignore the policy I just linked. --Random832 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Everyone is acting as if clerks are the only ones that can edit these pages. This is not the case. If this were the case I would have been chased off RFCU with torches and pitchforks sometime back in August instead of made a clerk myself. I, as Durin, was just some random Joe Shmoe that tried to help out in good faith, and they thought I did a good job of it and made me a clerk. You don't have to be a clerk to edit any of these pages. However, if ANYONE's edits are thought to be unhelpful by the community, be they normal editor or bureucrat, then they WILL be asked to cease editing that page. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• If that is the case, then clerks are not needed. If anyone can edit it, then all we need is instructions. We do not need special-class clerks assigned. Either it's open, or it isn't. --Durin 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Er no, not at all. The only person making a "special class" of clerk is you. The only person that invests them with any special rank, seems to be you. As AmiDaniel said, clerks have no special privelages. There is not a +clerk permission. Anyone can edit those pages. People who are disruptive will be removed from editing these pages. This status quo on Misplaced Pages for ages in _ANY_ area and the only time RFCU and CHU would be a special case is if you made it otherwise. Tangentially, what about SPROT then? Seems to me that's not very open. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• • (editconflict) Incidentally, everyone here should read WP:OWN. Note in particular, the red flag "Are you qualified to edit this article?" - Creating clerks in order to certify who is or is not "qualified" to edit something (and that is the most credible argument that has been made for their existence) flies directly in the face of it. We might as well get rid of WP:OWN entirely. "Everyone is acting as if clerks are the only ones that can edit these pages. This is not the case." Then what is a clerk? If everyone's allowed to do these things, why do we have a class of users such that, and I quote, "Only clerks should perform these actions."? And, even going beyond clerks, I think it is ridiculous that only Checkusers are allowed to say  CheckUser is not for fishing Even if it does make sense to require their judgement for borderline cases, why can't _I_ say {{fishing}} when there's a ridiculously obvious fishing expedition? --Random832 18:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Because you aren't the responsible party. RFCU exists for checkusers to accept requests. Hell, you'll be asking to reject stupid arbitration requests next. Mackensen (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Checkusers have access to privileged information required to do the job. They also have the required experience. This is simply not comparable. Zocky | picture popups 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It doesn't take access to privileged information to see what is a fixing expedition, as evidenced by the fact that the Checkusers do not consult any privileged information in making that ruling. --Random832 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we clear something up here, please? Is it true that (a) anyone can edit those pages, as Peter says, or (b) that "Only clerks can perform these actions", as Random cites? Zocky | picture popups 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit those pages. Clerks are ordinary users who have volunteered to help out, nothing more. In theory at least, if someone was completely useless, either because of bias or carelessness, then it could be suggested they help out somewhere else, although this doesn't happen very often, if at all. Addhoc 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would venture to guess that any non-clerk who uses these templates at WP:CHU/U or these templates at WP:RFCU will be asked to stop. In regards to WP:CHU, there are no instructions on what clerks are supposed to do. I contributed there for five months, and recently attempted to introduce some similar notations there . I was asked to "find some other task to focus on". --Durin 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can volunteer to help out, then why are some people being told that they should not refrain from helping out solely because they have not been appointed a "clerk"? (At least this discussion suggests that some people are being told that they cannot help out because they miss the magic clerk tag.) –Henning Makholm 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, that should have been "anyone can edit those pages in the capacity of a defacto clerk". Regarding your question, I'm not sure... Addhoc 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case then why does the page say that only clerks can perform those actions, and what's the purpose of having designated clerks, apart from badge wearing? Zocky | picture popups 19:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But if anyone can be a defacto clerk, then why should there be any formal distinction between defacto and non-defacto clerks? It is fine for there to be a page somewhere saying that "these fine people do most of the grunt work for the WP:XXX process", and I wouldn't care if such a page used the word "clerk", but that is something different... –Henning Makholm 19:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly don't see the problem. If a defacto clerk is good enough they can be given the role. Not everyone is looking for more jobs. Addhoc 19:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• And just how does a person prove they are good enough if they are not permitted to edit the page? If a person is good enough to conduct the edits, then their edits remain unremoved. That's how it is in mainspace. We don't permit people to edit the mainspace after ascertaining if they are good enough. Neither should we prevent people from contributing in other areas until they prove they are good enough to have the role. And if permitting/not permitting isn't the point, then there's no point to the clerk roles; anyone can do it. I fail to see any reason why anyone who watches WP:RFCU for a while, then follows the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Guide in conducting themselves at WP:RFCU should need a special label of "clerk". --Durin 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So anyway - those saying that anyone can make these edits and they will stand if they're ok... What is the meaning of "Only clerks may perform these actions" if it's ok for anyone who hasn't been formally made a clerk to perform them? Shall I go in and boldly remove that statement, since you're saying it's patently false? --Random832 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of clerk

I'd like to see people's definition of "clerk". If it varies by clerk area, feel free to expand or define separately. --Durin 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'll go for the only one I've had any real experience with: a checkuser clerk is someone appointed by the checkusers to help the checkusers keep WP:RFCU from becoming a mess. They need to be appointed to reduce confusion (the kind of confusion that sometimes happens on WP:AN when someone who doesn't know what they're talking about tries to answer a question) and because checkuser is such a very sensitive area. If there were no clerks and RFCU were run in typical wiki fashion, the result would be more flaming, more trolling, more confusion, and less getting done. Chick Bowen 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok. Why can not regular editors who follow instructions appropriately perform the same tasks? --Durin 20:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Because the checkusers own the page and they said so. --Random832 20:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Essentially, I'm inclined to agree with Random832 here, though I suspect he's being sarcastic. Checkuser is not a community process; what matters is that the checkusers themselves know that the page is being watched and processed by people they trust. I would never edit anything there that wasn't a case I was posting myself, because it's none of my business. I'm suggesting that RFCU is different from other processes (and that WP:OWN doesn't apply). The minute we started having checkusers we gave up some openness and wikiness in the name of security. I'm OK with that, ultimately. Chick Bowen 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter M Dodge's complaints against Durin

CheckUser clerks are trusted members of the community chosen by the checkusers because they trust these users with sensitive private information that sometimes is neccesary to discuss in a checkuser investigation. These clerks were "created" by Essjay, who for a long while was the only checkuser actively participating in RFCU, as a way to lessen the burden on himself, and have since been invaluable to the smooth running of the place. There are also users who are not clerks that have been invaluable in running the place as well, such as JzG who has placed a fair bit of sockblocks, and Ryulong who (sometimes to our frustration) seems to find a bunch of socks. *The clerks were later brought to Changing Usernames for the same reason - Essjay was one of the only active 'crats there (WarOfDreams being the other), and to lessen the burden on himself, he asked the clerks to help out. The problem with Durin helping out was that he was tagging requests with Done or Not Done over things that he and the 'crats disagreed with, and this effectively usurped the role of 'crats, because these requests would be archived without a bureaucrat ever seeing them. This is a problem for many reasons. First of all the bureaucrat is the one that should make the final descision, and secondly if a crat doesn't see a case, how are they supposed to know about the surrounding issue if that user complains? The other deal that came up is one that Essjay had talked to the clerk corps before about but in hindsight should have mentioned more publicly so that Durin would be aware - the issue of edit counts. Durin was tagging requests as not done or invalid over small edit counts which was agreed to be demeaning to these users. This was a cause of a lot of hurt feelings and several angry emails and thusly we stopped the practice. When Essjay told Durin about the issue it turned into a confrontation and while Durin eventually stopped doing this it has lead to hurt feelings on both sides that eventually exploded when Durin made a second error in tagging requests done or not done, and the clerk corps were not comfortable having him around. I personally did not want to be around amidst conflict - I'm just here to wikignome and hopefully be helpful doing so. I'm not here to judge editors, and I'm not here to assert authority. The main concern with Durin as I gather it is that he is trying to be officious and appear to have more authority than he does by supplanting the judgement of the bureaucrats. I make no representations to the truth of that statement, frankly I can see both why this conception is held and yet can also assume good faith on Durin's part. I personally would LIKE to see him contribute positively there, as one does not become an adminstrator without having one's head screwed on right, at least not back when Durin was promoted. However, the confrontational nature he has had with Essjay (and sometimes myself - the comment he made about my bipolar disorder was COMPLETELY uncalled for and I would appreciate an apology) makes me wonder if he would. He HAS helped but he has ALSO hindered, and at one point threatened the resignation of the entire RFCU(/CHU) Clerk corps, or at least significant portions thereof. His problem, if I may be so bold, is that he has been completely unreceptive to criticism. If he can simply take guidance with more than abrasive inflammatory answers, I think he'll be welcome there, for sure, but that's my opinion. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Why is a Bureaucrat needed to close a CHU as not done, when an Admin isn't needed to close an AfD as keep? --Random832 20:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Because requests marked as Not Done or as Done are automatically archived. If an AfD is improperly closed, and administrator has recourse. If a CHU request is improperly closed, it's a big headache for the bureaucrat to reopen it, and that's assuming they would even know about it. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • That's a technical problem which has a technical solution - wait longer before archiving. It should not be solved by forbidding people to close them unless they're "authorized" by a group which doesn't really, as far as I can tell, have the authority to permit/forbid people from making good faith edits. --Random832 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Do you have an argument other than OWN, because that rhetoric is getting old. That is a page for asking bureaucrats to do something for you. They have a right to ask certain things to be done in certain ways. You can disagree with WHAT they ask, and if you bring a good reason other than being a policy wank, they may change it, but just going on and on and on about policy just makes people wish you'd get a clue. Ignore all rules exists for this purpose. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• The only case that I tagged with {{not done}} were those where a duplicate entry existed later in the listing at WP:CHU and one where a cancellation was made. I do not and still do not see the problem with this. I have not and would not attempt to usurp the role of bureaucrats. I never tagged a request as not done over small edit counts. This is flatly and provably false. Yes, Essjay and I had a discussion regarding edit count basis for name changes. I proved to Essjay through a variety of diffs (and even a statement by him supporting it some time before) that edit counts were in fact a basis for denying username changes. Essjay provided a rationale why that no longer needed to be the case, and from that point forward I made no mention of edit counts at all. I note that it still says on WP:CHU "Please do not request a rename unless it is necessary. If you have only a few edits, see the alternatives below."
• I made NO comment about you having a bipolar disorder. I did not even know until now that you apparently have one. I did comment about your OWN statement on your OWN userpage that you suffer from clinical depression. To me, that explained your outburst against me where you accused me of all manner of things which were all baseless. I responded with then later retracted my request of an apology because I had seen where you stated you suffer from clinical depression. Outbursts are certainly to be expected of someone in that state. I forgave you the outburst and hoped to move on. Essjay shortly thereafter removed the entire section from his talk page and I then posted again on his talk page because there were two points still extant, and I noted that the removal was for the best . I'm sorry you feel offended by my remarks. I did not intend them to be inflammatory, nor did I intend them to insult you in any manner; only to recognize the situation as it was and forgive you the outburst. If you remain offended, which apparently seems to be the case, them I equally apologize. It was never my intention to do so.
• I had absolutely no knowledge of any intention of any clerks anywhere to resign from their positions as clerks as a result of my actions. In fact, there is no comments anywhere on Wiki about this. Had I known this was the case, I most emphatically would have taken a different course. I can not correct a behavior perceived by others as wrong if I am unaware of it.
• I have always been open to criticism. However, I can not possibly be open to criticism if I am not aware of it. Had anyone....anyone....approached me with these concerns before Essjay told me the clerk corps was resigning over this, I gladly would have been absolutely receptive to it. I will say this; I am not open to criticism that is provably false, such as the above accusations that I tagged requests as {{not done}} over low edit counts or that I made a comment about your bipolar disorder. You want to accuse me of something, then at least have it be factually based, and I will gladly listen. I always have, and I always will. --Durin 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP review requested

Seeking community guidance for my actions at Jesse Lee Peterson: that is, this edit and this edit. My reasons for acting in this manner are given in the edit summary. Moreschi 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be completely in the right: unsourced accusations of hate speech on biography pages should be removed on sight. –Henning Makholm 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, only the first of the two diff links in Moreschi's request were present when I wrote my reply above. –Henning Makholm 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just added the second. More of the same, IMO. Moreschi 19:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban request on User:GordonWatts

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Proto says, he's not malicious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not Wikistalking, just defending a friend. - SVRTVDude 02:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GORDON'S OBSERVATION:

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

Thus, it pain me that editors who

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some numbers

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

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

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

Total edits: 4210: Avg edits per article: 12.38

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages space: 562 (13.3% of all edits)

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

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

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts: 78
• Misplaced Pages Talk:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts: 29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion to close

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

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

Users endorsing this, sign below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   MartinGugino: 24,641 bytes

   GordonWatts: 109,579 bytes

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

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

9. First choice, good idea. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
10. First choice. Sarah 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
11. First choice. rspeer / ???ds? 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Never mind. I can imagine Gordon leveraging his daily epic incoherent rant on Terry Schiavo, being sure to take up as many words as everyone else in the discussion combined. This would not be good for Misplaced Pages. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
12. First choice. Leebo 11:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Third choice - even one post a day like this is too many. MastCell 05:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Probation / mentorship

Users endorsing this, sign below

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

Community ban from articles and talk pages related to Terri Schiavo

Users endorsing this, sign below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community ban

Users endorsing this, sign below

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

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

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

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

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

6. Second choice. Kyle Barbour 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Second choice as of now. The way he's continuing to act on this page is a prime example of "exhausting the community's patience". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

   "The way he's continuing to act..." Could you please be more specific, rspeer / ɹəədsɹ ? You seem to be insulting me, but not specifically telling me what your complaint is. (However, based on your edit summary: "Okay, I can learn from what's staring me in the face: one post per day from Gordon is one too many.)" you seem to be saying I post too much. If you are suggesting I post too much, then I have proof for you here that you are telling a lie, but I wonder if you'll look at the proof -you seem set in your ways. I think you should state your complaint -or else withdraw it. Oh, one more thing: Could you please certify that you've actually read all this page? (Cf: my comments, which do NOT comprise more than half -as elucidated elsewhere -and the comments of others.) When you certify you've carefully read ALL these comments regarding this RfBan, then we'll talk. Until then, I do not feel you are qualified to opine.--GordonWatts 09:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

   No. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Refer to ArbCom

Users endorsing this, sign below

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

Auxiliary straw poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so there we have it - many of you are liars and Gordon runs a newspaper that should be included on wikipedia pages - all clear evidence that he can learn from people are saying to him and does not just repeat the same points over and over again. Yes sir. --Fredrick day 10:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"many of you are liars" Perhaps: I concur, I won't mince words - I make a good case for that. "and Gordon runs a newspaper that should be included on wikipedia pages" I must respectfully dissent: While I have my opinions (I do have right to have an opinion), I am not promoting "my" newspaper, rather, if you will look at this post, I am merely offering an opinion on all smaller websites as sources -not mine per se. "repeat the same points over and over again" Well, if you don't want me to repeat myself, then simply read the material the first time -and certify that you've done so, and then we'll talk, but please don't cheat: You're on the honor system here.--GordonWatts 10:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Weighing up the above, it is clear to me that the community mood is that Gordon Watts should not edit Terry Schiavo articles directly, should not link or suggest links to his own sites, and should restrict himself to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day. If Gordin is not able to abide by this restriction then a ban will be sought, either through community processes or through ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

User:Jonathan ryan indef blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Community Ban Request on User:Classicjupiter2 and associated sockpuppets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment One example of a valid community ban due to sockpuppetry would be that of User:PoolGuy, see his talk page for reasons.--w 08:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Are we supposed to be checking this page periodically?

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

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

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

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

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

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

User abusing marking edits as minor?

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

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

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

Ok, I've informed the guy. Seems like a decent user making edits in good faith. Shrumster 13:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Template:Minor. --Quiddity 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan related categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar

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

Possible Posting of Thesis/Term Paper

Hi, not sure if this is the appropriate board but I just recently stumbled upon this article - History of Isabela Province. Checking the history, it seems that the whole thing was put in in one go, and it raised my suspicions. Regarding the formatting and everything, it appears to be some term paper or something of the sort. Could you guys check it over? Oh, and what's our official WP policy on posting possibly-unpublished term papers like this? W:NOR? Shrumster 13:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

When a strangely formatted article shows up in one big chunk like this, I tend to worry that it's been copied from another source--in other words, it's a copyright violation. If you do a google search for sentences from the article, you'll find that at least some of the text is copied from other sources (or possibly has been copied by them). The whole article seems to be on www.molinu.org, which I can't reach, but a Google cache is here: . That might be a mirror of the WP article, though, I can't tell what molinu.org is. Have you tried talking to the user who created the article? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

molinu.org looks like a mirror. It has a link at the bottom of the article to the "full article", which links to Misplaced Pages. —Centrx→talk • 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it. This shows that some part of the article was a copy-paste job. Although I can't find the rest, because the bulk of one section is plagiarism, the rest might as well be.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article candidates

Misplaced Pages:Good article candidates currently has a large backlog that needs involvement from members of all WikiProjects to assist in clearing the nominations that pertain to their topic. Each project's members are better at assessing articles according to the guidelines of their projects. Please assist in passing and failing articles according to the GA criteria. There are instructions on the candidates page if you are new to the task. By helping to remove the backlog, we can continue to improve the quality of our articles within Misplaced Pages. --Nehrams2020 09:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User removing context

Dcandeto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing context, like the country from Jacksonville Skyway, and claiming that "Misplaced Pages norm" is to not include it. Please assist. I posted this on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (assistance) yesterday but it had no response. --NE2 13:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

NE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding unnecessary information where it is not customary to do so. Very few articles, unless they are about placenames (cities, counties, census areas) themselves, include the country if they include the U.S. state or Canadian province. The Misplaced Pages norm is, in fact, not to include it. Referring to my edits as vandalism is silly and false. dcandeto 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say your edits are vandalism? As I said on Talk:Jacksonville Skyway:

It's a standard on Misplaced Pages. Not everyone lives in the U.S. If it's "especially abnormal for names of places in the United States", it's only because U.S. editors assume everyone knows the names of all 50 states.

Please desist. --NE2 16:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you used the {{vandal}} template. It is absolutely not standard to include the country name if the U.S. state or Canadian province is included. It may not be standard to exclude it, but it's not standard to include it. dcandeto 16:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

template:vandal is something I've seen used in many cases to give a convenient set of links, and was not meant to imply that you are a vandal. It certainly is standard to include context; see Misplaced Pages:Lead section#Establish context. --NE2 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The linked article basically says that the proper amount of context is the proper amount of context. It's really vague. dcandeto 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

NE2: try using {{User6}} instead, it gives a lot of good info links and doesn't carry the connotation of "Vandal", or if you want to use {{vandal}} try "subst'ing" it, so it just has the links. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, heck, {{userlinks}}, which is what Template:Vandal redirects to anyway. —Cryptic 17:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I use the {{user}} template, who needs all those extraneous links anyway? As for the inclusion or non-inclusion of countries, I think the both of you should just plain stop. It's really a meaningless argument because the country name should be in the linked to town article anyway. Contrariwise, it certainly doesn't hurt or damage the article in question to put in the country's name. So, in other words, you're both right and you're both wrong. My advice is to step away from the keyboard for a few hours and see the outside world, you'll feel much better for it. —Elipongo 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding 100+ external links

I've asked after similar cases at the Village Pump and have had only a couple of responses, so I figured I'd bring up the question here this time.

Yesterday Dsp13 (talk · contribs) inserted external links into more than a hundred articles to a site called WorldCat. WorldCat is arguably a useful, non-commercial reference site on various people, however its addition to so many articles tripped off some editors' spam alarms. Dsp13 tried to propose the site as the focus of a Wikiproject, but that seems to have since been deleted.

:That project proposal seems to be back now. —Elipongo 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My own feelings are these. While sites such as these can indeed be useful references, simply slapping up a link without adding anything material to the article bothers me. If I want to find a reference for adding to the article, I can find the link quite easily using Google, it doesn't need to be clogging up the External links section waiting for someone to use it.

I've heard the opinion in other cases that as long as it's a useful link, it should stay. In other cases I've seen all the links labeled as spam and deleted. I'd really like to see if there's a consensus on this issue so I, and others, will know how to react to these incidents. Thanks! —Elipongo 19:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already put my own views at Talk:Igor_Stravinsky. To summarise them:

• it would probably be possible for dozens of links to sites to be added to articles on the basis that although they don't support material in the article, they are of indirect use to someone researching the subject. As each one was added, however, it would become progressively more difficult to deny the case for the next. The end result will be a web directory tacked on to the end of the article. That, as I understand it, is the reasoning behind WP:EL, which aims to keep external links to a minimum.
• anyone requiring a listing such as for example library holdings of books on a particular subject will by definition be sufficiently highly motivated to find it anyway.

Just my 2p worth. Stephen Burnett 22:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with situations nearly identical to this one. The person adding the links may (or may not) be well intentioned but such links almost always are to be avoided. Links are to be kept to the minimum necessary, and should be carefully evaluated regarding their value to the article. Rapid-fire link insertion by someone with no prior history on the article isn't consistent with that. Raymond Arritt 01:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case, every possible book in a US library will warrant such a link--its the equivalent of a link to the ImDB article for each film, or to PubMed for every disease. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I've tried to explain my intentions in adding these links at User_talk:Dsp13#Worldcat spam, Talk:Igor Stravinsky, and at the project proposal. Here's my bloated tuppence. My general motivation was to facilitate cross-fertilization between Misplaced Pages (with over 200,000 biographies) and librarian's records about people (the Library of Congress Name Authority File has millions of person entries, each given a brief MARC description). First, from a reader's point of view, it seems desirable to have an easy way to pass from Misplaced Pages biographical articles to library holding by/about the individual. Second, from a 'semantic web' point of view, it seems desirable to connect what are in effect the two main publicly accessible anglophone authority files. They don't yet connect very well. As Jakob Voss has put it at Wikimetrics, there are cultural difficulties in encounters between 'semantic web people', 'library people' and 'Misplaced Pages people': 'they don’t talk to each other or don’t know each other or don’t understand each other'. (WorldCat Identities' links to Misplaced Pages raised some librarian eyebrows!)

Now, de:wikipedia are ahead of en:wikipedia in this regard: they’ve added over 20,000 external links between biographical entries and the German National Library. (Here's an example.) Why shouldn’t en:wikipedia do something similar? Previously, a technical problem was that the Library of Congress didn’t made it easy to move from their authority file to library holdings: WorldCat Identities, which uses the LC authority file as a backbone (though WorldCat is a union catalog, many member libraries use the LC authority files in cataloging) now makes something like this possible. Of course, different traditions in editorial culture may mean that what de: finds appropriate may never be felt appropriate in en:. Sorry for my own clumsy naivete in adding external links: I appreciate the concerns which editors (especially of major pages) have expressed about external link multiplication. I wonder, in the spirit of considering the experience of others, to know how de: justified their external links.

Shimgray has acutely identified serious problems with WorldCat Identities as it stands: although it’s a beta project, likely to improve, some of these issues may be unavoidable in union catalogs. So I'm also totally persuadable that adding a load of external links to WorldCat Identities is not the best thing to do. How, then, best to cross the divide between wikipedia and libraries as major repositories of biographical information? Dsp13 14:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Propose Indefblock of Buzzards39

I am proposing to have Buzzards39 indefinitely blocked for the following reasons:

• Buzzards39 is disclosing identities of user names and locations which is considered harassment in Incident 1,Incident 2, "The other goblin is Paul Drockton, AKA "Mormons 4 Justice", a formers Farmers manager who has been on a jihad against all things Farmers the past several months over a dispute dating back to 2002" and "This guy is from Arlington TX. The same city and state I am live in today".
• Buzzards39 is a Farmers Insurance Agent, " I am an insurance agent who does sell Farmers Insurance products.", yet he continues to edit Farmers_Insurance_Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) all sections of it including criticism. He delete criticism and tries to justify it with excuses. I warned him about this but he continues to delete and justify criticism of Farmers Insurance.
• Buzzards39 is Single purpose account which his sole purpose is to keep others from writing negative information about Farmers Insurance, yet at the same time writes positive information about it conribs. He has been warned about editing a single article,"Last, you might enjoy looking up articles to do with other interests -- hobbies, home town, school, outside interests -- and see if any of those look interesting too."
• Lastly he is rude to me then he goes to an administrator and acts like a lost puppy who is a victim.
• Disclosure: I am responsible for most/all of information that is critical of farmers Insurance. Router 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• From a summary review of the issue, this is a very inappropriate request. Community bans or indefinite blocks are sanctions of last resort against inveterate troublemakers who have already been the subject of multiple shorter blocks. In this instance, there have been no obviously problematic edits by Buzzards39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that I can see and no previous blocks. This page is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department. It appears you two are in a conflict over article content. To resolve such conflicts, please use the dispute resolution procedure. WP:3O might be a good place to ask for third party input. Sandstein 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• • And an editor who does pretty much nothing but post links to gripe sites such as "fuckpaypal" and "farmersinsurancesucks" is in a poor position to suggest another editor is a single-purpose account. --jpgordon 20:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Jpgordon should disclose that he was/is a . Then conspired with Syrthiss to indefinite block me. With that said I propose a temporary block or severe warning to Buzzards39 for the violations that has and continues to commit. Router 22:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please don't include personal information about other people in your edits. Corvus cornix 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've refactored the offending info out. -M 23:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That personal information is on jpgordon's user page so I didn't think it was a big deal, but OK. Router 01:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, really. It's not like I try to conceal that I worked at eBay until five years ago. I appreciate the concern, but I make no attempt to conceal my real-life identity. But it remains a fact that Router's sole interest at Misplaced Pages appears to be to add gripe sites to articles. --jpgordon 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Jpgordon, lets not lie now. I have not added a Gripe Site since you and Syrthiss proposed indef block of me, that case is over and done with you do not need to rehash. I learned my lesson. Router 18:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't like being called a liar. Please, instead, call me badly mistaken; for whatever reason (arrogance, among others), I assumed that you, like others have sometimes done, continued the specific bad behavior I chastised you for. Please accept my apologies. I withdraw from this conversation. I've stricken out the mistaken comments; Router has my permission to edit them away if he wishes . --jpgordon 06:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• In regards to the alleged harrasment, I plead "rookie mistake", since the personal info that the honorable Mr. Router refers occured literally on my first or second discussion edit. If it is a big deal, then by all means, remove it. As to my edits, I can only say that I have tried to: 1. Stay within the lines on NPOV, going so far as to solicit admin review of edits that I have made, and 2. Striven for full disclosure as to any possible COI so that Wikipedians may see my work and comments and draw their own conclusions. My humble submission is that Mr. Router has not been quite so transparent about his reasons for interest. When information has been properly sourced, I have left it alone. But I am unrepentant for removing or altering content that is false or misleading, including my latest revisions. I would not want to revoke Routers right to good faith editing, I wish he would accord me the same privelege. Buzzards39 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. This request really jumps the gun. The community doesn't ban accounts that haven't even earned a single regular block yet. Read Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing and try Misplaced Pages:Dispute resoluton. Durova 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose banning, I don't see anything even close to that level yet. Requesting a ban is not a dispute resolution step. Seraphimblade 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I also see no reason to support a block, let alone anything like a ban. In fact, Router should learn that on Misplaced Pages we don't divide articles up into sections depending on the editors' points of view: that's a recipe for disaster in terms of WP:NPOV. This is an editing dispute, and I have seen inappropriate contributions from both sides, but with a little more attention to the article from the community, and some education about Misplaced Pages, everything should work out fine. Mangojuice 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I completely agree with Durova. This is way too sudden and not a productive means to settle your dispute. As suggested above, there are options at WP:DR to help resolve issues like this. A community ban is not something to place on such an unelevated situation.¤~Persian Poet Gal 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. As others have pointed out, you've got to make some good-faith efforts at dispute resolution before even considering a community ban. I'm starting to wonder if this page's header should provide firmer guidance about when community ban discussions are appropriate. We could take the wording from Sandstein's post above: "This page is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department. Community bans or indefinite blocks are sanctions of last resort against inveterate troublemakers who have already been the subject of multiple shorter blocks." --Akhilleus (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs)

Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) is up to no good again on Sweetest Day and various related pages on both here and on Commons, despite being blocked several times for disruption and being warned countless times on his talk page about not resuming the issue. His recent contributions consist of edit warring over previously-removed links to a Commons gallery of articles related to Sweetest Day (the talk page there contains much POV pushing), and in late January he was again POV pushing (here, here as "reverting sophisticated vandalism", etc.), though nothing was done. Almost all of his edits are to things related to American Greetings and Hallmark Cards, and he has a long history of personal attacks and accusing other editors of being part of a corporate conspiracy (see ANI links below).

Previous ANI discussions: , , , .

This user clearly has no intent to change his ways or otherwise stop pushing his POV, as he has come back again and again despite being blocked or warned. Therefore, I propose a community ban. --Coredesat 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I've had numerous, numerous dealings with this editor and was really close to filing an Arbcom before he took a break around the beginning of the year. The Commons thing is kind of a final straw for me because it pretty much cements the fact that Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) is absolutely dedicated to gaming the system to push his POV by going outside the Misplaced Pages space to circumvent the consensus here. As Coredesat (talk · contribs) stated. he is nearly a single purpose account here and without going into too much detail about off-Wiki matters, There is evidence out there that Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) could never be neutral about these topics; he has an axe to grind here. I've spent so much time pointing out to him why his contributions are POV that I'm fairly certain I would not be viewed as a neutral outside party to this. This could be considered an endorse if anyone wants to see it as such, though I completely understand if my opinion is discounted here.--Isotope23 16:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard needs some attention

The biographies noticeboard is backlogged at 184 reports, some of which haven't seen action since December last year. It would be good if some experienced editors went that way. Thanks. MER-C 07:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though many requests just haven't been closed as they should have been. I just closed the two oldest entries easily. Grandmasterka 09:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste move

Hi, is there a certain procedure, if a user continues to make a copy and paste move (see ) although he was pointed out to not to do this (see User_talk:Lawsonrob? Does this come perhaps under vandalism or disruptive edits? Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 14:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

I think you should revert it and give a more stern warning. If he keeps doing it, maybe post something to WP:AN/I rather than here. Leebo 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerks of all types need to be deprecated

I recently had an interaction regarding clerking which started a thought process which resolved last night. In January of 2006, the Arbitration Committee established the office of RFAR clerks. People were appointed into the positions. This effectively created a new class of users. That's possibly ok. We've got lots of different types of users here; admins, arbcom members, bureaucrats, etc. What I think now is problematic about this is that this new class of users gets a privilege to edit a particular area of the project, and (this is the really bad part) other users are banned from editing that area. This is inherently anti-wiki.

At first, this didn't seem to be much of a problem. Hey, it's arbcom, they need help, and they create it. Seems to make sense. Problem is, the idea of clerking is spreading around the project. We've now got clerks for a number of things. People have to apply to get permission to edit certain things. Only certain people are allowed to appoint people to be clerks, and there's no oversight of these actions. In essence, it's a great big whopping sign that says "YOU ARE NOT TRUSTED TO EDIT HERE". The most valuable aspect of this project is the encyclopedic content of it, and we trust anyone...even anonymous IPs...to edit there. Yet, we don't trust people to edit productively in certain other areas of the project.

This all might seem expedient; after all, we don't want to have to deal with people messing up certain "important" pages, right? But, imagine a Misplaced Pages that had clerking over far more areas of the project. Let's scale it up.

• RfA clerks; only RfA clerks can de-list obviously failing nominations, improperly formatted nominations, etc.
• AfD clerks. Only AfD clerks can close AfDs that are obvious keeps or no consensus.
• Stub clerks. Only stub clerks are permitted to create new stub categories following discussion on their creation.

Where does it stop? Where do we say "this is not right"? If it's a bad idea when it covers many areas of the project, it's very likely a bad idea when it covers only a few areas. These type of clerk roles are also only a step or two away from things like image clerks, who are the only ones who can upload images, and article clerks, who are the only ones who can create new articles.

In my own case (which has been amicably resolved), I was effectively banned from editing an area of Misplaced Pages. I now (still) have to get permission, via becoming a clerk, in order to edit there. Except, the clerk waiting list is very long. I made good faith edits in these areas, trying my best to help out. I didn't even know there was a clerk status. I found myself on the receiving end of some not so nice comments, and essentially told to get lost.

Now, I've been here a long time and I'm fairly impervious to negative turns of events; it won't make me leave. But, other users may not be so. The more we scale the role of "clerking", the more editors we are going to annoy and cause to leave because editors find out there is an 'elite' class, and in order to join it you have to sit interminably on a waiting list and get a nod of approval from somebody whom you do not know.

At Misplaced Pages, we have a basic set of instructions designed to be relatively easy to follow. We have codes of conduct. We have means of dealing with users who continue to step out beyond those borders. Why is it in those clerk areas we can not have a simple set of instructions and use our tools to handle those users who consistently step outside of those instructions? Why do we need a special class of user who is permitted to edit certain areas, and anyone else must get special permission? If our means of managing the most important and valuable aspect of Misplaced Pages (the encyclopedia content) is sufficient then it is more than sufficient for handling meta tasks currently being assigned to clerks , and clerks only.

We need volunteers. Without them, we are nothing. Putting up barriers to volunteer contributions is antithetical to our goals. Clerk roles need to be deprecated in favor of appropriate instructions and willingness to use current management techniques to handle users who consistently step out beyond those borders. --Durin 15:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You nailed it. Whatever useful work is done by clerks can be done without the concept of clerks, as you described. Just say no to instruction creep. Friday (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem yet. InBC 15:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting essay, but desperately needs wikilinks to back it up. For example:

• What other areas, besides arbcom, have clerks now? In other words, what, besides the slippery slope, is actually wrong now?
• What are the areas that non-clerks for those can't edit?
• Why did you personally get in trouble? I have a vague memory that someone screwed up a few closings, but that might not have been you - without a specific link or three, that could be wrong. --AnonEMouse 15:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have links to the various clerks pages at the bottom of User:NoSeptember/Functionaries. NoSeptember 16:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think clerks are a good idea, so long as others aren't banned from helping out. As long as they help out right, I don't see a problem with it. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If anybody may help out, anybody can act as a de facto clerk. Why is there a need for designated clerks in such a case? Either they have the same rights as other editors (in which case their "extra status" is not necessary) or they have more rights (in which case others are de facto banned from helping out in certain ways). So I do not understand your position. Kusma (討論) 16:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We can have clerks and "de facto" clerks, but at the moment only clerks are allowed to edit the pages. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why I got in trouble is unimportant (had nothing to do with closings). I am intentionally speaking in the abstract; should we have areas of Misplaced Pages that are off limits to people editing except for specific designated clerks? If clerks are a good idea, where do we draw a line and say that a clerk role is inappropriate for X? I have long held, and wikiphilosophy upholds, that there is no stratification of users at Misplaced Pages. All editors are equal, whether they be the first time editor or a bureaucrat, admin, arbcom member etc. The only types of editors we have here are those that contribute positively and those that do not. We trust those that do. Clerks create an exceptional class of users who are trusted in certain areas, effectively making non-clerks untrusted. This is anti-wiki. --Durin 16:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. Let me confine my remarks to Arbitration clerks. As you say, this office was established by ArbCom, and the clerks are the designated representatives of the Arbitration Committee. It is true that most editors can perform the technical aspects of being a clerk (opening and closing cases, mostly). However, I believe there are good reasons for having designated clerks. Arbitration tends to be contentious. Often, comments have to be removed or refactored, and participants tend to react badly if that is done by another partisan in the case, or even by an outsider they aren't familiar with. The clerks are editors who are trusted to do this, both by the parties and by the Committee. Clerks tend to stay associated with the cases they open, and are people to whom the parties can complain if they feel there is a problem with another participant's behavior on the case. The clerks are trusted by the Committee to give authoritative answers to the parties' questions.

That said, I have considerably deprecated the Clerks' office already. There is no head clerk; we coordinate activities through a noticeboard. I also rewrote the Clerks' page to specifically state that informal help is appreciated. Thatcher131 16:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Allow me to modify the above, to highlight my point:

"It is true that all editors can perform the technical aspects of being an editor (creating articles, uploading images). However, I believe there are good reasons for having designated creation clerks. Creation tends to be contentious. Often, articles have to be removed or refactored, and editors tend to react badly if that is done by another editor they aren't familiar with. The creation clerks would be editors who are trusted to do this, both by the parties and by the Misplaced Pages. Clerks would tend to stay associated with the articles they create, and would be people to whom the parties can complain if they feel there is a problem with another editor's behavior on the article. The clerks are trusted by Misplaced Pages to give authoritative answers to editor's questions."

• I know you didn't say the above, but such a stance is utterly repulsive. If it's repulsive for the mainspace, our most important and valuable area, it's equally repulsive elsewhere. Either we are open to all good faith volunteers or we are not. --Durin 16:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, parties involved in arbitration cases are frequently not open to good faith edits to their cases. On numerous occasions, parties or non-clerks have made technically correct edits (such as removing threaded dialog from evidence pages) that is reverted by one of the parties. The clerks often acts as buffers or moderators between parties. Thatcher131 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Then have an instruction that parties to an arbitration case should not make deleting edits or reverts of another non-involved party to that case. Editors can act as buffers. We trust editors to act as buffers to problems in the mainspace. --Durin 16:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Arbitration cases are typically where the open trust of the mainspace failed. —Centrx→talk • 17:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Right. Allowing any user not involved in the arbitration case to edit does not undermine that. Unless we assume that nobody among the editors is trustworthy enough to edit arbitration cases other than ArbCom and the RfAr clerks. --Durin 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Durin that designated clerks are inherently anti-wiki. Any editor who knows how to fix an issue on a project page that implements a Misplaced Pages process should be encouraged to be bold and do it, no matter on which page. Any editor who does that several times becomes a de facto clerk. Why do we need any formal confirmation process for this? Kusma (討論) 16:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See also this discussion and this other discussion where similar bureaucracy was declared as bad. Kusma (討論) 16:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A question for any clerk: All of the currently active ArbCom clerks spent months before becoming clerks doing a lot of "helper" work. Were your edits then significantly less respected than they are now as clerks? (Especially after the regulars recognized that you were frequently involved in many cases in a housekeeping capacity?) NoSeptember 16:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In ArbCom's case, appointed clerks have the advantage that they're reliable, so that ArbCom doesn't get too much of a backlog. I'm not sure whether that should give them exclusive entitlement to edit the pages. If there are strong indications that doing otherwise would be harmful, maybe yes.

But in any case, those are rather specific circumstances. I'm not sure I see any other "area" of Misplaced Pages where we would need clerks. If we do, we should probably stop. Zocky | picture popups 16:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole 'clerks' thing is the only time I have seen restrictions imposed on who (in good faith) can edit a page. I specify in good faith, as restrictions are placed all the time on vandals and edit warriors. I can understand why the clerks are there. They are there to handle the essential maintenance kind of stuff to ensure complex ArbCom cases proceed smoothly.

But are these people only doing so because it allows them the label of "Clerk"? Or is the label just a convenience for "people the arbitrators trust not to fuck up the 'paperwork' of ArbCom proceedings?" Clerks are not appointed through any kind of open community process. There is no RfClerk. They are a special case. Arbitrators, bureaucrats, admins, and any other strata of user are given their extra tools through an open and defined community process. But there's nothing stopping anyone posting to an Arbcom decision workshop, or WP:AN, or WP:BN. However, if helping with the arbcom processes is free to all, then it becomes open to people without the best of intentions, or even people with good intentions but an incomplete awareness of how things should be done, which from the outside can often (unfairly) appear as one and the same.

I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this. I can see the point of formal Clerks (big C) in ArbCom proceedings, but not anywhere else on the Wiki. I would suggest that other areas that are starting to "appoint" them should not be permitted to do so, as they are not the necessary evil that ArbCom Clerks are. I would suggest that any ArbCom Clerk who remonstrates with someone who helping in good faith has let their new "title" go to their head, and ought not to be assisting the ArbCom in such a manner. Proto ► 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• To requote you as I did with Thatcher's comments above, "if helping with the editing the mainspace is free to all, then it becomes open to people without the best of intentions, or even people with good intentions but an incomplete awareness of how things should be done, which from the outside can often (unfairly) appear as one and the same." In a word, OUCH! Again, I know you didn't say this, but the principle is the same in my opinion. --Durin 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Durin's conflict was not over arbitration clerking. I don't believe an AC clerk has ever treated good faith help with anything less than total respect, and in fact there is a certain user who makes minor corrections and other helpful edits from an IP address, whom I have told is welcome to do so openly. Thatcher131 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A somewhat surprising number of people don't seem to realise that WP:RFCU and WP:CHU now have their own clerks and clerking systems. So I'm filling you in. The former I can get my head around, the second seems wrongheaded. Moreschi 16:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. As noted above, I was trying to remain in the abstract about this. The three areas where there are clerks are WP:RFAR, WP:RFCU, and WP:CHU. I'd prefer to remain in abstract; is there really any good reason to have clerks at all? If the reason can't translate to the mainspace, I think that reason is suspect. --Durin 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Durin's concerns originated in a conflict with Essjay over comments Durin was making to applicants at WP:CHU that Essjay did not agree with. Thatcher131 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I'm about to be direct here. The conflict I had with Essjay resolved amicably and has NOTHING to do with the abstract point of whether or not clerk roles are a good idea. My discussions with Essjay served to get me thinking about clerk roles in general. Thus, it was a catalyst. But, it is not the reason I am bringing this up. I am most emphatically not attempting an end-around on Essjay to get the clerk role remove from WP:CHU so I can edit there again. Let's stay focused on the abstract point here. I believe it is fundamentally important. --Durin 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• In matters like these, it is simply incorrect to think that Misplaced Pages is run by the community. Hence I am not sure why this is brought up on the community noticeboard. >Radiant< 17:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless Jimbo personally established the RFCU and CHU clerkship offices, it definitely is the community that decides. Zocky | picture popups 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It is interesting that you should think so, but it is incorrect. Suggested reading material are the earliest archives of the clerk pages. >Radiant< 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oh my, they're really doing it. Perhaps we should split this debate so that we don't get side-tracked - i.e. fill the whole page with discussion about ArbCom clerks, whom we are obviously not going to abolish just like that. Maybe it would help if we all agreed to keep ArbCom clerks out of this discussion (on the basis that they're at least appointed by a legitimate decision-making body), so that we can concentrate on these other types of clerks. Zocky | picture popups 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Umm, checkuser clerks were established by a legitimate decision-making body (checkusers). Change username clerks were established by a legitimate decision making body (bureaucrats). --Durin 17:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, neither checkusers nor bureaucrats are not a legitimate decision making body, just like admins aren't. They're individuals that are authorized to use certain additional tools, nothing else. They can't hold a formal collective vote or discussion which excludes other participants. They're neither as a body nor as individuals authorized to decide who gets to edit what. Zocky | picture popups 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• To Radiant; I'm open to suggestions on a better forum for this discussion. WP:AN isn't it (which is where I first thought to go). This is a community issue. This is the community noticeboard. ? --Durin 17:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue is not in where it is discussed, the issue is that the people that make the decision are not involved in the discussion. >Radiant< 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if we assume that clerks are necessary for areas other than ArbCom, pages such as Misplaced Pages:Changing username/Clerks, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Clerks and Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Guide seem to introduce needless complexity and hierarchy. It's especially odd to see the sentence "Due to the low nature of actions required by CHU clerks, currently Essjay has appointed..." Essjay has appointed? How did one person, however involved with Misplaced Pages, become in charge of username changes? I'd support the elimination of clerks with the exception of ArbCom and possibly an informal system at RfCU. The current system seems to be far too unwieldy. ChazBeckett 17:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well other checkusers and other bureaucrats do interact with the various clerks, so this is a case of Essjay taking the lead (being Bold) and the others accepting the helpful assistance that that boldness has created. NoSeptember 17:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I guess what's irking me is the hierarchy that seems to exist, namely: Essjay > Head Clerk > Dual Clerks > Other Clerks > Editors. All this organizational overhead seems especially silly on the CHU page, which currently has one clerk note. ChazBeckett 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To cut to the heart of the matter, this post is inevitably brought on by the fact that Durin was acting in ways that Essjay and the clerk body in general thought were dismissive and hurtful to people requesting name changes on WP:CHU. The clerk body has never chased away volunteers acting in good faith with stick, in fact they have this nasty habit of mugging you to join their group - it's how I became a clerk :-) However, when users are getting scared away from the page by one user that is acting in a manner suggesting officiousness, it become damaging to the reputation of the project as a whole. This whole thing to me looks like trying to backroad Essjay's telling Durin to get off the page for this reason, despite Durin's call to the contrary. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh. The heart of the matter has nothing to do with my recent conflict with Essjay. I've stated this three times now. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing to do with this. This has to do with what I feel is the inherently anti-wiki role that Clerks have, and its effect on the community. Can I be any clearer? What must I do to prove to you that my intentions here are in good faith? What must I do to not have you toss this legitimate question into the dirt because you think it is hate based because of a recent conflict? Tell me, and I'll do it. Please. --Durin 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter what Durin's intentions are. We're discussing this now in an open forum and several people have raised concerns with the concept of clerks. Doubting Durin's motives at this point is likely to generate much more heat than light. Zocky | picture popups 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Amen. The abstract point is where I have attempted to keep the focus of this. My intentions are absolutely altruistic. I believe the abstract point is fundamentally important. The concept of a "clerk" or other similar title has been spreading on Misplaced Pages. I found myself doing it on a new project page that I recently created because I wanted to protect the work that had been done from well meaning editors who would quite possibly screw it up due to the detail effort required to update the page. My recent conflict with Essjay brought to light just how wrong-headed this thinking was, and I removed the concept of "clerks" from the page . Subsequent to that, I thought it important to bring up the entire abstract topic for discussion. The fact that it has generated so much discussion shows there is interest in this topic. It deserves discussion. I'm glad I raised it. --Durin 17:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Clerking was an issue in this discussion based on my refusal more than a week before the latest controversy came to a head. And bureaucracy has been an issue here since before the Esperanza MfDs. NoSeptember 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Zocky. And both Essjay and Durin were working for the best interests of that area of the project. Their quick and pleasant resolution to a slight disagreement is exactly what you'd expect from users who are putting the project first over their own egos or being "right". NoSeptember 17:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Durin's points are what is relevant; his motives for making them are not. Moreschi 17:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

More generally, I do think it important that clerk-creep be avoided. Clerks can be useful to avoid abuse of a highly specific process, but we are not a bureaucracy and should avoid superfluous hierarchies. The RFAR clerks are useful and do a good job, but the notion of clerks for WP:CHU seems...redundant. Maybe WP:RFCU I can get my head round, though for some the whole clerk notion clearly appeals as a power trip, which can have unpleasant consequences. Certainly any further clerking procedures should be avoided at all costs unless completely necessary. Moreschi 17:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you to ask a checkuser what he thought about clerking? I'm sorry if you can't wrap your head around the idea, but from my standpoint the checkuser clerks are absolutely vital. If they went away I think we'd shut the place down. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, but it does possess bureaucracies, and we shouldn't lose sight of the distinction. Mackensen (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

This abstract discussion is fascinating but I'm left wondering what, exactly, it's intended to accomplish. The administration of the encyclopedia and the encyclopedia itself are fundamentally different concepts and require different approaches. Here, we're talking about bureaucracy–paper-pushing. A bureaucracy has to serve two different groups: the end-users, who have a right to expect a consistent approach, and the functionaries (arbitrators, checkusers, and bureaucrats), who need to work with people whose judgement they trust. In effect, clerks are designated by functionaries to make their lives easier; by carrying out routine yet important jobs, leaving functionaries to work with the actual problems and not push paper.

The objection has been raised that this is un-wiki. Of course it is. Anyone who has spent significant time on this project is well aware of the tendency of users to balkanize, create personal fiefdoms, impose particular styles on articles and so forth. Wikis resist centralization and comformity. It would be a disaster, however, to treat our bureaucracy in the same fashion. People engaging the system should encounter a consistent approach, not a mess where every user decides they're going to handle a request this way or that.

It should be reiterated that clerks are carrying out tasks at the behest of functionaries. It is generally recognized that arbitrators are free to refactor the RFAR page as they see fit, and checkusers routinely do the same with RFCU. However, functionaries don't have the time to do this and do the jobs the community selected them for. This is where clerks are so incredibly vital. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just trust the general community do to that? Why create a hierarchy? Moreschi 17:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I've indicated some serious problems with that approach above. I would add that the nature of the task requires "regulars"–people who are going to stick to it for months at a time. In that way a body of knowledge develops that requires a cathedral, not a bazaar. Furthermore, selection permits the weeding out of those "power trippers" that you're concerned about. I'm not aware of any such problems myself. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that's true for ArbCom: seems unlikely to me that the same is true for RFCU or CHU. A constant supply of rotating people doing the same job would work as well, no? My point was that the very nature of the current procedure, where you put yourself forward, is likely to attract power trippers. You can hardly avoid that. Moreschi 18:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be great if the community could take care of everything by itself, but it cannot, so we do have hierarchies. If the community could handle everything itself we would not need admins, or crats, or clerks. InBC 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a strawman, that. Adminship and cratship involve technical features we clearly cannot trust to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who strolls along. Clerk responsibilities are surely entirely within the capabilities of the people who will know about these pages in the first place, with the probable exception of ArbCom. I still don't see the need for a hierarchy. Moreschi 18:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not the one who asked for it, either. Mackensen (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to believe that. The question isnt whether YOU trust the general editor population, it's whether the BUREAUCRATS do. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The community owns these pages, not the crats. If not, it's time we started getting worried. Moreschi 18:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've not read all of the commentary here in depth, so I'll restrict my comments only to the original posting. Frankly, I find the argument that we may someday have RfA, AfD, and stub clerks to be an argumentum ad absurdum--such positions would never be allowed by the community, nor has anyone but yourself suggested such implementations. RfA is an open-end process, moderated by Bureaucrats, though other users may, when acting in good faith, close snowball RfA's. Similarly, AfD is an open-ended process moderated primarily by admins, although other users are invited in limited respects to assist in this moderation. Stub-creating ... well, now you're just getting silly.

Clerks are really in no way bestowed with extra powers or freedoms, technical or political--they are simply a method of organizing administrative activities so as to ensure that all needed tasks of tedium are completed and so that effort is not duplicated. Yes, it is a title, but as we all know, titles are meaningless. In cases of clerks such as those of the ArbCom, CheckUser, rename requests, or open-proxy verified (which could itself be considered a "clerk" title), restrictions are placed upon who can serve as a clerk with regard to their observed ability to do a good job. If you're unable to verify open proxies, I don't want you to be making decisions regarding blocking my ip address as an OP. Similarly, if you don't know how the CheckUser or account rename process works, you probably shouldn't have the power to close requests, such that no CU or crat will ever see them, as they may well be valid requests. With the ArbCom, the clerks there are appointed as almost honorary members of the arbitration committee; I believe this to be well within their juristiction to do, and I would rather not have people with the power to decide what goes before the ArbCom and what doesn't (a power which AC clerks sort of have) if they don't have a clue. Ultimately, I see no problem with the social division of the "clerk"--I'm afraid that with the current size of the pedia, such distinctions will have to be made from time to time to prevent the incompetent from obtaining degrees of power which they shouldn't have, and to allow those with power to delegate duties onto others. You can't seriously expect Essjay and the few members of the ArbCom to do everything alone. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• If the offices of checkuser clerk and change username clerk had not yet been created and I had suggested that we could go on to create those, I would equally be told I am making a silly argument because we'd never do those things. Removal of RfAs from RfA for snowball reasons has been a contentious issue for quite some time. I could easily see a strata of users whose job it is to perform the menial tasks of closing out desperately failing RfAs; it is routinely the case that people who are doing it now get it wrong. I know; I've corrected a rather large number of these closings. So, it's not much a stretch. Same goes for AfDs; it is routine that AfDs are closed as no consensus and are hotly debated. Same goes for stubs; there's been discussion about renegade non-discussion created stubs for years. It's hardly absurd.
• The main problem here is creating barriers to contributing. Why are there 19 people waiting on Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Standby to help out in an area they are interested in? Why is it we must assume bad faith with those users that they are not capable of acquitting themselves appropriately there? Why must we create a special class of users who are allowed to edit there? THAT is what is absurd. I have to seek special permission to contribute? Why? That's senseless. If I appropriately follow the instructions given on a particular page, there should be no reason why I can not contribute there. Yet, there are such places where people are not permitted to edit unless they are in this special class of user. In doing this we create a special class of users who are above regular editors, who are trusted more, who are the few that have the privilege of contributing. This is fundamentally wrong. --Durin 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom was established by the community and Jimbo and given the powers to make collective decisions. Individual ArbCom members have no additional powers because they're on ArbCom, and they can't appoint clerks. We have no collective decision making mechanism for bureaucrats or checkusers and no policy that gives them the power to decide who can do what, neither accepted by community or created by Jimbo. This weakens the position of anybody trying to enforce it and inevitably causes conflicts. Zocky | picture popups 18:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume that what you say is true. The arbitration committee isn't required to use RFAR as a mechanism either, and may not in fact have the power to manage such a page. Does that prevent the page from being used? Of course not. In the same manner, checkusers created RFCU as a conduit for requests, but that wasn't ordained by the community and they're free to suspend/abolish it any time they feel it has outlived its usefulness. Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Both ArbCom and checkusers are required by policy to receive and handle requests. How they do it is largely their business, as long as it's within normal community standards. We're trying to discuss whether this is within normal community standards or not. The whole concept of clerks is clearly a violation of (or shall we say, exception to) of the wiki process, which is in itself a major cause of concern. Most of us agree that its advantages outweigh the drawbacks in RFAR. Many of us are disputing pr at least having doubts about the idea that the same is true for RFCU and CHU. The issue is usefulness to the project, not who gets to sit on which rung. Zocky | picture popups 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(This doesn't apply to ArbCom, but it does apply to everywhere else where clerks are used or may in the future be used) What a lot of people aren't understanding is that sysops, bureaucrats, checkusers, and so on, are just editors with more buttons, and they do NOT have the right to, without community consensus, forbid the general editing population from (in good faith and non-disruptively) editing a particular class of pages. A permission flag does not come with WP:OWNership of anything, nor does it confer the ability to ignore the policy I just linked. --Random832 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Everyone is acting as if clerks are the only ones that can edit these pages. This is not the case. If this were the case I would have been chased off RFCU with torches and pitchforks sometime back in August instead of made a clerk myself. I, as Durin, was just some random Joe Shmoe that tried to help out in good faith, and they thought I did a good job of it and made me a clerk. You don't have to be a clerk to edit any of these pages. However, if ANYONE's edits are thought to be unhelpful by the community, be they normal editor or bureucrat, then they WILL be asked to cease editing that page. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• If that is the case, then clerks are not needed. If anyone can edit it, then all we need is instructions. We do not need special-class clerks assigned. Either it's open, or it isn't. --Durin 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Er no, not at all. The only person making a "special class" of clerk is you. The only person that invests them with any special rank, seems to be you. As AmiDaniel said, clerks have no special privelages. There is not a +clerk permission. Anyone can edit those pages. People who are disruptive will be removed from editing these pages. This status quo on Misplaced Pages for ages in _ANY_ area and the only time RFCU and CHU would be a special case is if you made it otherwise. Tangentially, what about SPROT then? Seems to me that's not very open. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• • (editconflict) Incidentally, everyone here should read WP:OWN. Note in particular, the red flag "Are you qualified to edit this article?" - Creating clerks in order to certify who is or is not "qualified" to edit something (and that is the most credible argument that has been made for their existence) flies directly in the face of it. We might as well get rid of WP:OWN entirely. "Everyone is acting as if clerks are the only ones that can edit these pages. This is not the case." Then what is a clerk? If everyone's allowed to do these things, why do we have a class of users such that, and I quote, "Only clerks should perform these actions."? And, even going beyond clerks, I think it is ridiculous that only Checkusers are allowed to say  CheckUser is not for fishing Even if it does make sense to require their judgement for borderline cases, why can't _I_ say {{fishing}} when there's a ridiculously obvious fishing expedition? --Random832 18:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Because you aren't the responsible party. RFCU exists for checkusers to accept requests. Hell, you'll be asking to reject stupid arbitration requests next. Mackensen (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Checkusers have access to privileged information required to do the job. They also have the required experience. This is simply not comparable. Zocky | picture popups 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It doesn't take access to privileged information to see what is a fixing expedition, as evidenced by the fact that the Checkusers do not consult any privileged information in making that ruling. --Random832 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we clear something up here, please? Is it true that (a) anyone can edit those pages, as Peter says, or (b) that "Only clerks can perform these actions", as Random cites? Zocky | picture popups 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit those pages. Clerks are ordinary users who have volunteered to help out, nothing more. In theory at least, if someone was completely useless, either because of bias or carelessness, then it could be suggested they help out somewhere else, although this doesn't happen very often, if at all. Addhoc 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would venture to guess that any non-clerk who uses these templates at WP:CHU/U or these templates at WP:RFCU will be asked to stop. In regards to WP:CHU, there are no instructions on what clerks are supposed to do. I contributed there for five months, and recently attempted to introduce some similar notations there . I was asked to "find some other task to focus on". --Durin 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can volunteer to help out, then why are some people being told that they should not refrain from helping out solely because they have not been appointed a "clerk"? (At least this discussion suggests that some people are being told that they cannot help out because they miss the magic clerk tag.) –Henning Makholm 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, that should have been "anyone can edit those pages in the capacity of a defacto clerk". Regarding your question, I'm not sure... Addhoc 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case then why does the page say that only clerks can perform those actions, and what's the purpose of having designated clerks, apart from badge wearing? Zocky | picture popups 19:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But if anyone can be a defacto clerk, then why should there be any formal distinction between defacto and non-defacto clerks? It is fine for there to be a page somewhere saying that "these fine people do most of the grunt work for the WP:XXX process", and I wouldn't care if such a page used the word "clerk", but that is something different... –Henning Makholm 19:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly don't see the problem. If a defacto clerk is good enough they can be given the role. Not everyone is looking for more jobs. Addhoc 19:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• And just how does a person prove they are good enough if they are not permitted to edit the page? If a person is good enough to conduct the edits, then their edits remain unremoved. That's how it is in mainspace. We don't permit people to edit the mainspace after ascertaining if they are good enough. Neither should we prevent people from contributing in other areas until they prove they are good enough to have the role. And if permitting/not permitting isn't the point, then there's no point to the clerk roles; anyone can do it. I fail to see any reason why anyone who watches WP:RFCU for a while, then follows the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Guide in conducting themselves at WP:RFCU should need a special label of "clerk". --Durin 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So anyway - those saying that anyone can make these edits and they will stand if they're ok... What is the meaning of "Only clerks may perform these actions" if it's ok for anyone who hasn't been formally made a clerk to perform them? Shall I go in and boldly remove that statement, since you're saying it's patently false? --Random832 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of clerk

I'd like to see people's definition of "clerk". If it varies by clerk area, feel free to expand or define separately. --Durin 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'll go for the only one I've had any real experience with: a checkuser clerk is someone appointed by the checkusers to help the checkusers keep WP:RFCU from becoming a mess. They need to be appointed to reduce confusion (the kind of confusion that sometimes happens on WP:AN when someone who doesn't know what they're talking about tries to answer a question) and because checkuser is such a very sensitive area. If there were no clerks and RFCU were run in typical wiki fashion, the result would be more flaming, more trolling, more confusion, and less getting done. Chick Bowen 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok. Why can not regular editors who follow instructions appropriately perform the same tasks? --Durin 20:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Because the checkusers own the page and they said so. --Random832 20:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Essentially, I'm inclined to agree with Random832 here, though I suspect he's being sarcastic. Checkuser is not a community process; what matters is that the checkusers themselves know that the page is being watched and processed by people they trust. I would never edit anything there that wasn't a case I was posting myself, because it's none of my business. I'm suggesting that RFCU is different from other processes (and that WP:OWN doesn't apply). The minute we started having checkusers we gave up some openness and wikiness in the name of security. I'm OK with that, ultimately. Chick Bowen 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter M Dodge's complaints against Durin

CheckUser clerks are trusted members of the community chosen by the checkusers because they trust these users with sensitive private information that sometimes is neccesary to discuss in a checkuser investigation. These clerks were "created" by Essjay, who for a long while was the only checkuser actively participating in RFCU, as a way to lessen the burden on himself, and have since been invaluable to the smooth running of the place. There are also users who are not clerks that have been invaluable in running the place as well, such as JzG who has placed a fair bit of sockblocks, and Ryulong who (sometimes to our frustration) seems to find a bunch of socks. *The clerks were later brought to Changing Usernames for the same reason - Essjay was one of the only active 'crats there (WarOfDreams being the other), and to lessen the burden on himself, he asked the clerks to help out. The problem with Durin helping out was that he was tagging requests with Done or Not Done over things that he and the 'crats disagreed with, and this effectively usurped the role of 'crats, because these requests would be archived without a bureaucrat ever seeing them. This is a problem for many reasons. First of all the bureaucrat is the one that should make the final descision, and secondly if a crat doesn't see a case, how are they supposed to know about the surrounding issue if that user complains? The other deal that came up is one that Essjay had talked to the clerk corps before about but in hindsight should have mentioned more publicly so that Durin would be aware - the issue of edit counts. Durin was tagging requests as not done or invalid over small edit counts which was agreed to be demeaning to these users. This was a cause of a lot of hurt feelings and several angry emails and thusly we stopped the practice. When Essjay told Durin about the issue it turned into a confrontation and while Durin eventually stopped doing this it has lead to hurt feelings on both sides that eventually exploded when Durin made a second error in tagging requests done or not done, and the clerk corps were not comfortable having him around. I personally did not want to be around amidst conflict - I'm just here to wikignome and hopefully be helpful doing so. I'm not here to judge editors, and I'm not here to assert authority. The main concern with Durin as I gather it is that he is trying to be officious and appear to have more authority than he does by supplanting the judgement of the bureaucrats. I make no representations to the truth of that statement, frankly I can see both why this conception is held and yet can also assume good faith on Durin's part. I personally would LIKE to see him contribute positively there, as one does not become an adminstrator without having one's head screwed on right, at least not back when Durin was promoted. However, the confrontational nature he has had with Essjay (and sometimes myself - the comment he made about my bipolar disorder was COMPLETELY uncalled for and I would appreciate an apology) makes me wonder if he would. He HAS helped but he has ALSO hindered, and at one point threatened the resignation of the entire RFCU(/CHU) Clerk corps, or at least significant portions thereof. His problem, if I may be so bold, is that he has been completely unreceptive to criticism. If he can simply take guidance with more than abrasive inflammatory answers, I think he'll be welcome there, for sure, but that's my opinion. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Why is a Bureaucrat needed to close a CHU as not done, when an Admin isn't needed to close an AfD as keep? --Random832 20:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Because requests marked as Not Done or as Done are automatically archived. If an AfD is improperly closed, and administrator has recourse. If a CHU request is improperly closed, it's a big headache for the bureaucrat to reopen it, and that's assuming they would even know about it. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • That's a technical problem which has a technical solution - wait longer before archiving. It should not be solved by forbidding people to close them unless they're "authorized" by a group which doesn't really, as far as I can tell, have the authority to permit/forbid people from making good faith edits. --Random832 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Do you have an argument other than OWN, because that rhetoric is getting old. That is a page for asking bureaucrats to do something for you. They have a right to ask certain things to be done in certain ways. You can disagree with WHAT they ask, and if you bring a good reason other than being a policy wank, they may change it, but just going on and on and on about policy just makes people wish you'd get a clue. Ignore all rules exists for this purpose. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• The only case that I tagged with {{not done}} were those where a duplicate entry existed later in the listing at WP:CHU and one where a cancellation was made. I do not and still do not see the problem with this. I have not and would not attempt to usurp the role of bureaucrats. I never tagged a request as not done over small edit counts. This is flatly and provably false. Yes, Essjay and I had a discussion regarding edit count basis for name changes. I proved to Essjay through a variety of diffs (and even a statement by him supporting it some time before) that edit counts were in fact a basis for denying username changes. Essjay provided a rationale why that no longer needed to be the case, and from that point forward I made no mention of edit counts at all. I note that it still says on WP:CHU "Please do not request a rename unless it is necessary. If you have only a few edits, see the alternatives below."
• I made NO comment about you having a bipolar disorder. I did not even know until now that you apparently have one. I did comment about your OWN statement on your OWN userpage that you suffer from clinical depression. To me, that explained your outburst against me where you accused me of all manner of things which were all baseless. I responded with then later retracted my request of an apology because I had seen where you stated you suffer from clinical depression. Outbursts are certainly to be expected of someone in that state. I forgave you the outburst and hoped to move on. Essjay shortly thereafter removed the entire section from his talk page and I then posted again on his talk page because there were two points still extant, and I noted that the removal was for the best . I'm sorry you feel offended by my remarks. I did not intend them to be inflammatory, nor did I intend them to insult you in any manner; only to recognize the situation as it was and forgive you the outburst. If you remain offended, which apparently seems to be the case, them I equally apologize. It was never my intention to do so.
• I had absolutely no knowledge of any intention of any clerks anywhere to resign from their positions as clerks as a result of my actions. In fact, there is no comments anywhere on Wiki about this. Had I known this was the case, I most emphatically would have taken a different course. I can not correct a behavior perceived by others as wrong if I am unaware of it.
• I have always been open to criticism. However, I can not possibly be open to criticism if I am not aware of it. Had anyone....anyone....approached me with these concerns before Essjay told me the clerk corps was resigning over this, I gladly would have been absolutely receptive to it. I will say this; I am not open to criticism that is provably false, such as the above accusations that I tagged requests as {{not done}} over low edit counts or that I made a comment about your bipolar disorder. You want to accuse me of something, then at least have it be factually based, and I will gladly listen. I always have, and I always will. --Durin 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP review requested

Seeking community guidance for my actions at Jesse Lee Peterson: that is, this edit and this edit. My reasons for acting in this manner are given in the edit summary. Moreschi 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be completely in the right: unsourced accusations of hate speech on biography pages should be removed on sight. –Henning Makholm 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, only the first of the two diff links in Moreschi's request were present when I wrote my reply above. –Henning Makholm 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just added the second. More of the same, IMO. Moreschi 19:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)