Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:14, 13 June 2008

Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil

Moved from WP:ANI - thread over 50k - D.M.N. (talk)

I'd like some assistance. After reminding User:Andyvphil that he's not to edit others' Talk page comments , he immediately altered my comments (to an uncivil quip) in his User_talk space and continued his tenditious editing at Talk:Barack Obama . I'd normally leave someone so clearly in the fast lane for a block to their own devices, but I don't appreciate his repeatedly editing others' remarks; Andy's been blocked repeatedly for his hostility toward other editors, and while others have tried to work with him, he doesn't seem to be learning from past interaction. Shem 05:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Btw, none of my blocks were for "hostility toward other editors". Which is not to say that I take kindly to the abuse of process that Shem is engaging in here. Andyvphil (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil has now edited my comments on this page and again on an article talk page . Shem 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What part of "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it"(WP:TPG) is lost on you? You don't own this page, or the Barack Obama talk page, and you're not allowed to use headers to make abusive assertions ("tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil"). Keep your "comments" in the text area, where your signature marks them as the opinions of dubious origin that they are. Andyvphil (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Shem will take this opportunity to realize that warning and threatening every user he edit wars with is counterproductive, and will only make enemies, and will not help out his cause in the slightest. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's always been a collaborative work, so there aren't any "enemies" here, Evil Spartan. I stand by all of 'em, and was glad to step back in and remind some of y'all that Misplaced Pages's not a battleground. Shem 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By all means let's look at Shem's examples of my "edit others' Talk page comments " and "continued... tenditious editing". Both involve only the header on an article's (not a user's) talk page, where the guideline is: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."(WP:TPG) Shem's header was "This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus" and I first changed it to "Further comments by Option 1 supporters: 'This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus' and, after Shem reverted, to "Argumentative header redacted, per : "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.'" (edit comment "...I'll leave replacing it to someone else.") So the real question is whether Shem's right to protect the integrity of his remarks means that his argumentative headers can't be made neutral. And whether he should escape rebuke for filing completely bogus complaints like this. Andyvphil (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think this editor is headed for a long-term block or ban, if he does not either improve or lose interest in the project. Replacing talk page headers with complaints and personal attacks (here's another, and in this very section he edits the headings to turn a report on his behavior around to a complaint about the poster) is one of the least of the problems. The site of the most recent trouble, the Barak Obama article (where he has joined forces with three other accounts to pester his perceived enemies with taunts like "Obama campaign volunteers" and "Obama fanboys", and broke ranks of the consensus discussion to renew an edit war), was recently taken unprotected with a stern warning to not edit war that soon lead to the article's full protection. The other place he has been most tendentious of late is a sockpuppet report Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth (where he called User:Josi "bad, arrogant", "arrogant abuse of admin power...for whom an admin bit is an opportunity to stoke their ego..."and me an "imbecile" and a "liar". We can and should have a thick skin about all this, but it's lead to protectio of an important article and the more or less complete breakdown of consensus discussions.

I have had a couple of prolonged unpleasant run-ins with him myself and left quite a few warnings. Andyvphil has not responded well to repeated warnings, and shows no sign of self-reflection or moderating his behavior. However, now that he is a party to a sockpuppet request, and much of his incivility and tendentiousness is occurring there, I would say he's already under scrutiny so I'm not sure a separate forum is needed here for the moment. Wikidemo (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It was admin, not merely "user" Jossi whose actions in blocking Fovean_Author with no plausible justification I called arrogant. My retitling of this section so that it does not assert my guilt is in accord with the guideline I've quoted above, and if you read "accusation" into the perfectly neutral descriptive title "Allegation by User:Shem of tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil", that is entirely in your own head. Not that I am unwilling to accuse when it is called for. You point to my calling your addition of my name to the list of sockpuppets operated by "suspected sockpuppeteer" Kossack4Truth an abuse of process, and I stand by that 100%. Since your cohort in the hagiographic clique (you, Scjessey, Lulu, Shem...) called me a racist without rebuke it's hard to credit the notion that calling the group Obama Campaign Volunteers would merit one. That's assuming I used the term. Where's the diff? I'm sure I never used "Obama Fanboys", though it's not an epithet in a league with "smells of racism" either.

I won't bother refuting the rest of your off-topic rant. Shem has reported an "incident". He alleges that I have engaged in "tendentious editing" by first contextualizing and then redacting his argumentative header on the Barack Obama talkpage. Did I or did I not -- that's the question in this section, and I am confident that the answer cannot possibly be the one he wants. If you want to raise a different complaint against me, start another section. Andyvphil (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo correctly, below, appears to consider that the "racist" issue is moot here. However, that incident reveals more about how Andyvphil responds to disputes. He links above to the place where he was allegedly "called" a "racist." The diff does not support that. Nor was "smells of racism" (not the actual language) a personal attack, and that Andyvphil thinks it was is diagnostic. Scjessey's edit summary was this: "Undid revision 211967788 by Andyvphil (talk) - rv disruptive edits that are starting to look suspiciously like racism." While this may not be the soul of cooperative civility, because it could indeed be taken in an inflammatory way, it merely noted Scjessey's impression of the edits, their appearance to him, and a concern. That was not a personal attack, for a totally non-racist editor could make an edit that "looks like" racism to another editor. Had Scjessey called Andyvphil a "racist," it would have been an entirely different matter, or if he had made some broad statement clearly implying that, such as "All his edits appear to be racist," a personal attack would have been visible.--Abd (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor seems to claim his ongoing incivility and name calling are okay because he was provoked by supposed "cohorts" who called him a racist a month ago. I can't quite follow that, and I wasn't involved during his last visit to this page. But he has clearly been confrontational and upset many editors over a long period and has no interest in stopping. Indeed, he continues after making the above statements to edit war on the Obama talk page over the very edit that was first complained about in this report (though he is now defacing rather than merely altering the heading). That is particularly disruptive given the consternation, disagreement, name calling, and allegations of sock puppetry surrounding the repeated polling, with the polls becoming a springboard for edits that got the Obama main page fully protected. Yet another warning would not seem to help; he dismisses this as "administrative arrogance" and "abuse of process". Whether or not the disruption would justify a block at this very moment, in the long term something ought to be done to mollify things.Wikidemo (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What I've dismissed as abuse of process was Shem's bogus assertion that I had edited his "comments" (again, its only his headers I've insisted follow WP:TPG) and your bogus assertion that I could possibly be a sockpuppet of Kossak4Truth. Another bogus "warning" that I shouldn't interfere with Shem's misuse of headers will indeed be dismissed by me. What part of "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it"(WP:TPG) is lost on you? Andyvphil (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't take the invitation to snipe back. He is edit warring on the Obama talk page, citing a misinterpretation of WP:TPG, to deface one option in a heated poll to Argumentative header redacted, per : "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." There's a bona fide concern of sockpuppetry or at least meatpuppetry, per Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. He's recently called me a liar and an imbecile. That's all in the last day or so. He and Shem are revert warring again in the past half hour over the title to this section.. This is not looking good. - Wikidemo (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree in principle that changing a section header is not the same as refactoring someone else's talk page comments, and I think that some of the header modification edits made by Andyvphil were probably okay, this is unacceptable. Behavior like that could rapidly lead to a block. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

(ec)Andyvphil is also repeatedly editing section headers placed on his Talk page, turning warnings to him into taunts of other editors. See , changing "Do not edit others' talk page comments." into "Shem's sham outrage," undone at by Shem. changed "Edit warring." into "Hypocritical hagiographers threaten," removed by Wikidemo with with summary: "remove personal attack heading and replace with original" (Next edit from Wikidemo also replaced another header Andyvphil had removed, and added text warning about NPA.) Andyphil then, today, replaced the "sham outrage" attack header,, claiming "wider latitude on my Talk page." Most recently, as this is written, Shem reverted that last change, and notified Andyphil of this AN/I report..

See also the SSP report, Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. Sock puppetry has not been proven, though there is reasonable suspicion remaining. However, for our immediate purposes, the behavior of Andyvphil in this report should be reviewed. He is generally attacking administrators and others who warn or restrain him. He consistently fails to assume good faith, instead imputing hypocrisy, bias, "plethora of bad, arrogant, admins," "abusing process for the purposes of harassment," "arrogant abuse of admin power," "Arrogant and unaccountable admins," "admins equally incurious as to the facts but eager to boost their fagile egos by pissing on any non-admin "peon" handy."

Those are some of the facts, a review of this editors history will find much, much more. As to the implications, Andyvphil is correct that he has greater latitude on his Talk page, but that does not extend to using his Talk page for personal attacks. Further, a section header added by a user with the user's edit of the page is part of the user's edit, and changing it can alter the meaning. Changing it into a personal attack is even worse. His provocative, taunting ABF comments are disruptive and confuse efforts to find editorial consensus. Readers may be aware that I've often complained about administrative abuse. It happens. But it is not necessary, dealing with it, to impute bad faith, hypocrisy, spite, and all the rest, and, in fact, administrators are accountable. I commented in the RfAr proceedings of User:Physchim62 and User:Tango, who made blocks apparently as a result of alleged personal attacks directed at them, violating conflict of interest rules, and not for the clear protection of the project, which might have justified the blocks under IAR, and those admins both lost their bits. Other administrative errors happen, often through inattention, but are remediable. Attacking the administrators' personal motives, absent clear proof, isn't legitimate. I'm amazed that this editor isn't blocked yet. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Talk:Barack Obama page has been a toxic combustion chamber of editors behaving badly, getting other editors offended who then behave badly and so on. To get involved in discussions there is almost guaranteed to make yourself the target of an attack. There is plenty of bad behavior on both sides -- and I do mean sides. Only part of the problem will be solved with blocks or topic bans. What's needed are more adults with patience taking a little time to get involved in discussions about an article that gets tens of thousands of page views on a typical day and on June 4 got a quarter of a million page hits. It's inevitable that controversial subjects get debated heatedly on certain talk pages. What's odd about this talk page is the low heat/light ratio and the worse drama/constructive discussion ratio. I know that's not an advertisement for recruiting cool heads to the page, but it would be good for Misplaced Pages if you'd come. It's not only a great exercise in trying to keep cool, but you might learn somethng about one of the most important topics of the year. Slap permanent bans on every editor whose signature appears in this section, and you'll have the same problems on the page within two months. Wider participation is the only way out. Noroton (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Moi? Slog around in the mudfight? Ask me personally, on my Talk page, and I'll consider it. Just like I'd consider helping my neighbor who asks me to help clean out the remains of a racoon that died in his basement. I don't need "exercise in keeping cool," I need cool. It's over ninety out today. I prefer, usually, to seriously work on articles where I'm expert on the topic, at least in some way. I actually use what I know to judge what is notable and what is not. Horrifying, I know, but I don't remove stuff because it isn't sourced if I think it is true and balanced. (If I put such in, and I often do, I can't complain if it is removed because of lack of RS, though I'd consider it more polite, if it seems like it might be verifiable, to tag it.) Anyway, thanks. As to the issue of Andyvphil, I've seen his attitude be a problem across more than one article, it's not just Obama. And it goes way beyond the too-common incivility between disagreeing editors. It's divisive, us vs. them, wikiwarfare. And it doesn't belong here. Given how much he's been warned, and how many times blocked, I'd say it's time to pull the plug. Will this stop edit warring? Probably not. But it will lessen it, at least a little. (Some might be surprised to know that I think we should block far more quickly, but with less ongoing effect. When the police see a fight going on, it is *not* their job to decide who was right. They say, "Stop!" and anyone who does not stop gets stopped, immediately. Has nothing to do with who started it, who was the evil-doer and who was protecting all that is Good. Stop. Now. Then, when the smoke clears, the police decide whom to more permanently arrest, if any, and who can walk free. Let me put it this way: there should be an "everyone involved, stop" block reason that doesn't create any prejudice with regard to future, more serious blocks. It would not involve any judgment of blame. And I'm pretty sure that I'd be blocked in this way, at least occasionally!) --But maybe evenly distributed warnings would serve for this. And article protection does stop edit warring.--Abd (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Toi! (Et vous!) Sometimes the raccoon dies in the volunteer firehouse. And the trick with working on an article like Barack Obama is that almost everybody has some knowledge, most everybody needs more knowledge, anybody would benefit (even off Misplaced Pages) by getting more knowledge, and it's good for the soul to find out you're wrong every now and then. Aux armes! Aux armes, citoyens! (for the French-defficient, see my edit summary)Noroton (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions

← Barack Obama is a featured article and one of our most often-viewed and high-profile pages. The editing behavior there is a disgrace to Misplaced Pages, and has been recognized as such by the mass media (). No one person is wholly responsible, but any attempt to deal with it has to start somewhere.

• Andyvphil (talk · contribs): Four escalating blocks for edit-warring; has wikilawyered each of them by arguing the letter of 3RR and accusing the admins of not knowing how to count or recognize a revert (see here, here, here, etc). Citing the talk page guidelines to justify changing another editor's overly "argumentative" heading () is odd coming from someone who himself routinely alters others' headings into attacks: , , , , , etc. This editor is gaming WP:TPG as part of an ongoing pattern of inappropriate editing. His level of civility is poor even by the standards of the Obama talk page; he's dismissed every attempt to reason with him or moderate his approach (e.g. here and here); and the denial of his last 3 unblock requests led him to conclude not that his behavior violated this site's standards, but that admins as a group are a capricious, ignorant "mullah class" conspiring against honest editors like himself (). I haven't seen any potential for improvement here. This editor is playing a major role in the devolution of one of our highest-profile articles into a battleground (even drawing the attention of the popular press). I'm going to go ahead and block him for 1 month for disruptive editing on top of 4 previous blocks for edit-warring, and if he resumes the same approach after the block's expiry, I would support an indefinite block.
• Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs): Editors with "Truth" in their username seem to run into problems with NPOV and tendentiousness fairly often. This is an evident tendentious single-purpose agenda account contributing heavily to the poor quality of editing and behavior at Barack Obama. S/he has racked up 2 blocks in the past few weeks for edit-warring on the Obama article. Third edit blued out his talk page with a pre-emptive defense against charges of sockpuppetry (). I would recommend a topic ban to see if there is anything more here than someone dedicated to abusing Misplaced Pages as a venue to advocate for a specific, narrow agenda. I won't impose this without further uninvolved feedback, though.
• A number of other editors at Barack Obama have contributed to the poor atmosphere there. This is not an exhaustive list, but an identification of a starting point for improving this situation. Experienced or constructive outside editors without an axe to grind are essential, but I don't think we'll attract many of them until the current debacle is addressed. I would welcome uninvolved feedback on the above, as well as any additional review of these or other participants in the article.

The bottom line is that this is one of our highest-profile articles, and its current atrocious state as a WP:BATTLEfield of tendentious edit-warring is a high-profile disgrace to Misplaced Pages. Feedback welcome. MastCell  17:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • 1/ Is a month enough? 2/ A topic ban...well, is that going to be effective? A short block might be a better step. 3/I want to review this whole article further (as an outside opinion) - I'll check back within 12 hours. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Re: a month, I'm open to feedback on that. Re: a topic ban, for most single-purpose agenda accounts a topic ban ends up being functionally identical to a block - they came here to push a specific agenda, and if they can't, then they leave. On the other hand, if Kossack4Truth has other interests and something of value to contribute to the encyclopedia, then the topic ban may facilitate that. I think it's a less blunt instrument. MastCell  18:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It's very troubling behaviour. I'm absolutely certain that (at minimum) a topic ban is needed for Kossack4Truth. Will continue looking through everything, including other involved editors conduct (amidst the edit conflicts) in a few hours or so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • You pretty much nailed it, MastCell. 1 month for Andyvphil is exactly what I'd recommend, given the history and behavior, which isn't marginal, balanced with gradual escalation of blocks. --Abd (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)I'm an involved editor and I've been in agreement with Andyvphil and Kossack4Truth in terms of some of the broadest issues, but I can't criticize a single thing MastCell says. Noroton (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Support Mastcell's summary of the problems over at the obama page as a good first step --It jibes with what I've observed over on the talk page on the few occasions I'm able to look over there. One of the main problems with SPA pushing a point of view is that each edit by itself is plausibly defensible, if not scrutinized too closely (a big thanks to Mastcell for doing the legwork on putting his summary together). Support the 1 month block for Andyvphil and the 1 month topic ban for Kossack4Truth. The remedy is appropriate for each. R. Baley (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you proposing a 1 month topic ban on Obama related articles for Kossack4Truth? He currently isn't under such a restriction and while MastCell did recommend a topic ban, he did say that he wasn't imposing it and didn't include a time frame. --Bobblehead 01:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Has K4T been notifed that he's being discussed here? By my count, in the 14 hours since this report was opened K4T has participated in a minor edit war (to be fair, on the right side of it), placed a warning logo on the Obama talk page and that of a user relating to the edit war, re-added disputed information that Tony Rezko was convicted of bribery, and accused one editor of "distortion" and another (the edit warrior) of "indefensible" conduct. But he seems capable of good editing. Perhaps a warning is more appropriate than a topic ban.Wikidemo (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• MastCell has, as is often the case, summarized this mess rather nicely. I'd say that the block and topic ban seem to be quite appropriate in the pursuit of slowing down the mayhem on this very, very busy page. If other adherents of the combatants pick up the sword and start to charge, though, an attempt at article probation might be a good idea - it probably won't slow down anytime before the elections. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• As noted by Noroton

  Slap permanent bans on every editor whose signature appears in this section, and you'll have the same problems on the page within two months.

  However, MastCell's suggestion seems likely to have the effect of removing the immediate problem, giving the parties time to consider the consequences of their actions, and discouraging future POV warriors from participating too disruptively on the subject; I support the proposal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• No opinion on the merits of the block, but Andyvphil (talk · contribs) has requested unblock for the purpose of contributiong to this discussion, and I have advised him to post any pertinent comments or unblock requests on his talk page.  Sandstein  22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't have any real objection to unblocking him specifically to post here, but given past history I think it might be most productive to adopt Sandstein's suggestion, which is fairly standard practice, for Andyvphil to post his comments on his user talk page and have another editor copy them here as needed. MastCell  22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Good call by MastCell, a more long term block seems necessary at this point and a month seems appropriate. I've seen Andyvphil at the related A More Perfect Union (speech) article, and while he has made some constructive edits there the overall approach to editing and the tendency to comment pointedly on the supposed motivations of other editors troubled me from the outset (the behavior there does not at all approach the problematic level at the Obama article however). Andyvphil can no doubt be a constructive contributor but needs to recognize that his behavior up to now has been problematic. I also fully agree that the main Obama article is a big problem for Misplaced Pages and we need more admins (and editors) who can keep a cool head over there helping out. I've intentionally avoided it but will probably try to lend a hand at some point. The situation over there could easily lead to worse press for us than that which has already been published.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• I support MastCell's analysis of the problem and his block and ban recommendations. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• MastCell's spot-on. Shem 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Would suggest the topic ban be enforced then. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse MastCell's analysis. Would support the month-long topic ban if Kossack4Truth enters WP:ADOPT. Further on evidence support site ban/ indef blocking of Andyvphil if he does not address eth substantive behavioural issues raised here - too much disruption to make a point & too much wikilawyering--Cailil 20:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Having just found out about this (gee thanks), I would like to offer a word in my own defense. It is clear that there are POV pushers on the other side of the dispute at Barack Obama. I'm somewhat new to this and was unaware that being a single purpose account is frowned upon. I would voluntarily and cheerfully start a week, or even month long topic ban on Obama related articles, if admins can promise me that the POV pushers on the other side of this dispute are monitored carefully, and blocked without hesitation as needed, in the interests of protecting the Misplaced Pages project. In particular, they're trying to gut the section on the presidential campaign and remove virtually all references to Tony Rezko, even now. Hit Scjessey with a month-long topic ban at the same time. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing revert war

Now that this editor does know of the proposed topic ban, he jumped in to a revert war on the Barack Obama article anyway to restore a list of criminal charges against Tony Rezko.. He reverted the "bribery" charge part of it two other times in the hours before learning of the proposed sanctions, so he is at exactly WP:3RR. There was another edit yesterday in a revert war over a broader section that included this material. So the editor has been at a state of WP:3RR for some time. There's also ongoing debate, with the editor claiming on the talk page that those he is reverting are POV-pushers and issuing warnings and appeals on their talk pages. You might want to take a look at the behavior of other editors as well here. Kossack4Truth's four reverts are among a total of 12 reverts in the last +/- 36 hours (by my count) to the Tony Rezko section of the Obama article - all that after edit protection was lifted and people warned to not edit war. Wikidemo (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

a total of 12 reverts in the last +/- 36 hours ... and at least half of them were by Wikidemo, Scjessey, Loonymonkey and the other exclusionists who make substantive edits without consensus, in defiance of repeated warnings from admins on the article Talk page. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to respond to this editor's tit-for-tat accusation except to say it factually incorrect. The three editors mentioned above made a total of four edits to the Obama article in the last 36 hours: 1 each by me and Loonymonkey, and two by Scjessey. Only three out of four would plausibly be described as part of the 14-edit (two new ones now) revert war. Kossack4Truth has no cause to lump me in with the group he taunts as "Obama campaign workers" - my edit was uncontroversial, unopposed, and if anything supported Kossack4Truth's position more than his perceived opponents. I've left a caution for Scjessey over his two edits today, urging him/her not to take up a revert war. As I said, any administrator examining the mess should probably look at the editors on both sides of the revert war. Perhaps this can be untangled without going to page protection again. Wikidemo (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need some intervention, pronto! The Tony Rezko portion of the Obama article has now been reverted 1516 times in 36 hours, 1213 of those (by my count) in the last six hours. Multiple editors are involved - two are at 3RR, one at 2RR, and quite a few people have jumped in now at 1RR. I'll makeI made one last effort on the talk page to get people to stop but I don't know what else to do. A user has now proposed a possible compromise, and there seems to have been no reverting for the past hour, maybe a good sign. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• FYI: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:WorkerBee74_reported_by_LotLE.C3.97talk_.28Result:_.29 (LotLE×talk)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:WorkerBee74 reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: ) (same editor reported again, currently at 4RR) Wikidemo (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Also: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters - an odd sock puppet that could be another piece of this puzzle - Wikidemo (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, when somebody's presumed "wrong," it's OK to denigrate his motives and edits, as Andy's are above; but if that person returns the favor and denigrates----in this case, the Obama-biography exclusionists as "hagiographers"----why, it's grounds for an incident report! As for the New Republic, apparently a partisan in agreement with the side of an issue that's presumed "right" must show incredible genius while somebody in disagreement would show their imbecility, as why else should how Andy's editing is seen through the prism of the New Republic be thought to have any bearing here? — Justmeherenow (   ) 08:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My point in mentioning the TNR article was not that Andy is "wrong" and Scjessey is "right" - in fact, I don't think the article draws that conclusion. My point was that a major publication has taken note of and described the politically-motivated edit-warring occurring on one of Misplaced Pages's highest-profile articles, and that it reflects badly on Misplaced Pages regardless of who's "right" or "wrong". MastCell  16:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Justmeherenow has described the exclusionists well. They have learned one of the rules of Saul Alinsky: they accuse others of engaging in the kind of misconduct that they are committing themselves. As I said in the section below, Misplaced Pages style for the biographies of prominent politicians is well established. The exclusionists are ignoring that summary style and inventing their own. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it is time for a WP:FAR on this page. It certainly is no longer stable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive POV push by a handful of exclusionists

I would like very much to take a 30-day voluntary break from all Obama-related articles. But I would like a commitment from the involved administrators that they are going to monitor the conduct of a small but determined group of exclusionists on these articles.

User:Life.temp gutted the article, removing a total of 732 words in two consecutive edits: I placed the following warning on his/her Talk page and on the article Talk page: He/she removed the warning from the user Talk page with a personal attack in the edit summary and discussed this warning in two edits on the article Talk page, proving that he/she had seen the warning and was aware of increased concerns about edit warring. Nevertheless, last night Life.temp again gutted the article, ripping out nearly 1,000 words this time: None of these edits were accompanied by anything resembling consensus.

It is obvious that Life.temp's goal is to expunge any controversy from the article. This goes hand in hand with similarly intentioned efforts by User:Scjessey, User:Loonymonkey, User:Wikidemo and User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. I request a block of at least 24 hours for Life.temp, a warning for the other four, and a seven-day topic ban for all five of them. Thank you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I support this action but with a modification: the topic ban for Life.temp, Scjessey and Wikidemo should be six months in length. They're POV pushing on the Talk page, edit warring on the article mainspace, making nasty remarks in Talk and in their edit summaries, distorting Misplaced Pages policy to excuse their misconduct, and using summary style as an excuse to delete major controversies while leaving in such trivia as Obama's struggles to quit cigarette smoking, his alternate career choice as an architect, chili is his favorite food, etc.

The proper style for Misplaced Pages biographies about major politicians is well established at such articles as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan, John Howard, John Kerry and, of course, John McCain. Major controversies are dwelt upon at length in the biography, and announced by name in bold section headers, such as "The Lewinsky scandal," "Whitewater and other investigations," and "Iran-Contra affair." Critics who use these controversies to bash the politicians are frequently quoted, even if they belong to the opposing party or faction. I believe in precedent. This style represents a broad consensus of the thousands of Misplaced Pages editors and admins who have worked on hundreds of biographies of prominent politicians over the years.

Life.temp, Scjessey and the other three are deliberately defying that consensus. They've been warned repeatedly. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Of the polticians you mention, only McCain is actively involved in a high-profile campaign at present, so of the articles you mention above, only McCain's is an appropriate comparison. I think our article on John McCain is decent. I certainly don't see that "major controversies are dealt with at length" in his article. I don't see any obvious attempts to one-sidedly "bash" him in the article, and I don't see any bold-type section headers which reflect negatively on McCain. Aside from the iffy "Cultural and political image" section, it looks pretty reasonable at a glance. I certainly don't see that the Obama article has gotten special treatment compared to McCain's. MastCell  16:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Both McCain and Obama's biographies look pretty reasonable, and neither one looks like it got special treatment, when all of the LT/Scjessey/etc. whitewash has been reverted. Please look at the hagiographic Obama version LT has been pushing, compare it to the McCain biography, and try to tell me with a straight face that neither one is geting special treatment. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in two days I've been complained about in a formal way to admins, and not notified by the complainer. That behavior, in itself, is uncivil. In the future, if you are going to call for blocking me, and start a discussion of that with admins, invite me to the discussion. I gave my opinion about who is responsible for the edit warring here . I explained why campaign-specific information should only be summarized here . I didn't say controversial material should be removed from Misplaced Pages; I said the details belong in articles dedicated to the controversy. Life.temp (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions by Ncmv

For contribution to the poor atmosphere, edit-warring, disruption, incivility and/or the like...I suggest:

• Kossack4Truth be blocked for a week, followed by a topic ban for 3 months from all Obama-related pages including talk pages. He may be unblocked upon agreeing to stay away from all pages.
• WorkerBee74 be topic-banned from all Obama-related pages for 1 month.
• Fovean_Author be topic-banned from all Obama-related pages for 1 month.
• Lulu_of_the_lotus_eaters be topic-banned from all Obama-related pages for 2 weeks.
• Scjessey be topic-banned from all Obama-related pages for 2 weeks.
• Quarter-master be topic-banned from all Obama-related pages for 1 week.
• Life.temp be topic-banned from all Obama-related pages for 1 week.

Any users violating these bans for the first time should be blocked for a week, and a month thereafter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Amendment - In addition to the above, I suggest 1RR (every 24 hours) is strictly enforced throughout the Obama-related pages. Editors are warned that this does not endorse reverts or slow edit-warring as a technique. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to suggest that you may have been "hoodwinked" by an inexperienced, edit-warring individual (and his single-purpose account surrogate) whose only contributions to Misplaced Pages have been POV-pushing and wikilawyering. Biographies about living persons have special rules that must be adhered to in order to protect both the subject of the article and Misplaced Pages as a whole. Using BLPs as soapboxes, or extensions of political smear campaigns violates these rules.

I have no agenda other than to ensure the accuracy, relevancy and neutrality of articles. Since I became a Wikipedian in early 2005, I have contributed much to the project. I have worked hard to build consensus on article talk pages, and any reversions I make (and these are few and far between) are in accordance with Misplaced Pages rules. To have a 10-day old single-purpose account demand I be given a six-month ban is beyond belief, and I would urge administrators to see through this transparent ploy to use wikilawyering to push an agenda. If I am given any kind of topic ban I urge administrators, in the strongest possible terms, to fill the vacuum they will have created by ensuring Misplaced Pages policies are enforced on these popular political articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• You need to step back (and should your suggestion as it is baseless). I've independently looked at what's been said at the talk page and the kind of edits that have been made by participating editors. You have contributed to the poor atmosphere there - check what you said at 14:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC) and the last sentence in your contribution at 13:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC). Making a header titled "Dumb argument" is not constructive either. These are just a couple of examples I'd jotted down when formulating this suggestion. There are more examples scattered on the talk page and among your contributions history. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Er... if you mean this edit, that was a humorous response to a bit of poetry(?). I believe you are viewing my edit history with an overly-critical eye, probably because the baseless allegations of my "edit warring" et al have somehow prejudiced my "case" (or whatever you call this process). My suggestion that you had been "hoodwinked" is an expression of my incredulity that anyone should consider my contributions to this project as anything other than good faith edits. If I have "contributed to the poor atmosphere" at all, then it is because of my frustration that agenda-driven editors are ignoring Misplaced Pages policy in such great numbers that the neutrally-minding, altruistic group (of which I am a part) cannot keep up. Administrators can and must take a more active role in policing such articles (outside of the main page, Barack Obama is probably the most trafficked of all Misplaced Pages articles) so that regular editors don't have to shoulder all the burden. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • I have you down for two weeks because I can see some active attempts by you to trying to maintain standard Misplaced Pages process - initially, I'd jotted a month. You need to step back and get rid of that frustration to be more constructive. If you voluntarily can get rid of that frustration on your small wikibreak, I'd withdraw that suggested remedy as time served. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That proposal by Nmcvocalist is very lenient to Scjessey's side of the dispute since Andy has already been blocked for a month. It was LT who blanked so much material on two separate occasions, after multiple warnings from admins and a final warning from K4T. Scjessey, like LT, also got a warning. Like LT, Scjessey deleted it with an expression of contempt. This proposal also ignores the misconduct of LotLE, who has a long history of combative behavior and blocks like Andy.

We must be able to rely on admins to impose sanctions tat are fair to both sides of a dispute. Admins must be neutral. They must not take sides or play favorites. This must be a demonstrable fact. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• This isn't about being fair or unfair to a particular side. Each participant is assessed on how they have contributed to the poor atmosphere. I've been too lenient on all participants I think - blocks may be more effective. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that blocks are warranted in those cases. Andyvphil and Kossack4Truth both had multiple blocks accrued in a short period of time due to edit-warring on Obama articles. I don't see any entries in the block logs of Life.temp, Looneymonkey, Wikidemo, Shem, or Quartermaster. Scjessey does have 1 block for edit-warring, and I'm largely unable to make sense of Lulu of the Lotus Eater's block log, though it has quite a few entries over his 3+ years here. I'm not saying that these editors have behaved in an exemplary fashion, but I don't see the same level of refractoriness there. I would like to look at this a bit further, but pending that I would propose a blanket 1RR and possibly article probation, and I'd like to get the help of additional uninvolved admins since I don't really want to be in the position of dealing with this mess alone. MastCell  16:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • WorkerBee74 keeps accusing editors in a misleading way, so please don't accept without questioning that people on his list are actually involved. The list he wants "banned", calls "Obama campaign volunteers" or "exclusionists", etc., changes each time. He has no plausible gripe with Looneymonkey. I haven't made a controversial edit to the article since article protection was lifted. Shem is currently trying to broker a truce to the edit war - which WorkerBee74 and two others broke in the last few hours through continuing reverts but may be holding now.

Until just a few days ago Hillary Clinton was also actively camaigning and she has only "suspended" her campaign. During the entire campaign, her biography had "Lewinsky Scandal" and "Whitewater and other investigations" as section headers. Please don't try to claim that McCain's is the only comparable biography. Besides all living persons should be treated the same. I suggest that 48-hour blocks and six-month topic bans would be fair for the three exclusionists I've mentioned since they are veteran editors and should know better, they've contributed to the atmosphere with their nasty remarks, and they are trying to win an edit war. You really need to review their edits and edit summaries before letting them off with a slap on the wrist. LotLE and to a lesser extent, Loonymonkey have also caused problems. Maybe a 24-hour block and 30-day topic ban for LotLE, and a 7-day topic ban for Loony. As for me, I'd like to have an opportunity to prove that I have a lot more to offer WP than reverting POV pushers. Do you agree that WP biography style for prominent politicians is established by these other biographies? WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles're preferably led by the example of Featured Articles, not the other way around. Shem 18:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• In assessing how each participant has contributed to the poor atmosphere, admins looking over Talk:Barack Obama should realize that I removed parts of two comments here and here. No one's perfect, and context counts, but I think it's worth doing a "Find on this page" search for "LotLE" on Talk:Barack Obama, Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 21 and Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 19, and then drawing your own conclusions. I think it's nasty stuff, but I haven't done a comparison with what others said and did, and maybe there's a context I'm missing. Noroton (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• I notice at least one conspicuous absence, which I'll point out in case that was an oversight - User talk:Fovean Author. See the history of blocks and incivility on the talk page, and the odd sockpuppet report, noted above. Perhaps it would be useful to also list people for whom sanctions are not imposed and explain very simply, e.g. "userxxxx - no remedy warranted at this time" so that people will at least know the review was thorough. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think the whiff of bans and blocks is probably a pretty healthy motivator for good conduct in this situation, both for the named and the unnamed. It would also look like a pat on the head. Noroton (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're probably right. I'm just a little frazzled by all the animosity and personal attacks and seeing my account name dragged in here. Wikidemo (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You must be kidding: "Life.temp be topic-banned from all Obama-related pages for 1 week." I've made one edit (in 2 parts) and reverted to to it twice. That is the entirety of my history with any Obama article. I explained that one edit at great length in Talk, and connected it to an official guideline. I've been uncivil to no one. I said some editors have destroyed the logic of assuming good faith. Given the discussion here, many agree. Life.temp (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Article probation?

MastCell suggested article probation earlier, which I couldn't support strongly enough at this point. Shem 18:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oh dear god, please do. As one of the former maintainers of the article, I can say the constant edit warring, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith on the article has pretty much driven off all of the people that got the article to FA status and kept it there for the next 3+ years and has also made it next to impossible to actually get any work done on the article. --Bobblehead 19:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  As the second highest contributor to the article last time I checked, I totally agree with what Bobblehead said here. Tvoz/talk 23:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• At WP:3RRN we're getting a lot of reports filed about the above edit warriors. To be honest, I just want them to stop. I know Andy games the system so we can't really take any action. The editors involved usually discuss so much that it clogs up the board. I'd support a complete article ban on all the above editors involved with immediate blocking on any edits made to Barrack Obama aside from the removal of obvious vandalism. Talking to them obviously doesn't help as they all think they're correct. Scarian 19:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite ban (until successfully appealed, if at all) or a certain duration? Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support the blocks and bans proposed by Ncmvocalist in the above list, to prevent these editors from working on Obama-related articles. I'd also consider any reasonable proposals for longer-duration bans, going up to indefinite. An article ban is not as serious as a complete block from editing Misplaced Pages, so we need not follow a minutely-detailed process here. We just need to stabilize the editing climate so regular editors can get back to work on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Some form of article probation is probably a good idea, perhaps now or perhaps in the near future if problems continue. If we go that route I'd imagine a 1RR rule on the article itself and a strict application of the civility policy on the talk page would address a lot of the problems. I'm just starting to look into this, but at this point I would not support an indiscriminate topic ban "on all the above editors." Topic bans (if they happen) should be handed out to those who have actually been abusing Wiki processes, not simply the more prominent names in the dispute, and I don't want to catch up editors who have been largely constructive in their edits into the dragnet. At this point I'm most inclined to take a "this is your last chance" approach to the article and see if the threat of (and if necessary implementation of) longer blocks or topic bans is able to calm things down over there a bit. I've been taking a look at what's happening on the page and have already warned three different editors about their behavior. Those who are edit warring or otherwise being disruptive will receive blocks. There does seem to be a bit of a truce on the talk page at the moment (kinda), so now is probably a good time for neutral admins to get involved and set some standards about acceptable editing practices on the page. One way or another though what has been happening cannot be allowed to continue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Article probation or any such "warning" is insufficient on its own as it will not stabilize the the climate there, nor can it be enforced effectively. These suggested sanctions aren't at the most prominent names - the names are of those who have actually to a great extent (and sometimes persistently) contributed to the long-term poor atmosphere there most recently. Talking to them hasn't helped - it's time for the community to step up and actually address the issue instead of circling around it and letting it escalate further. 1RR should be enforced - but it's going to be pointless when meatpuppetry begins. We therefore need to prevent this continuing with such sanctions I've suggested in the above header as the next starting point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not bans and more blocks are put in place, a 1RR rule and strict application of civility would do a lot of good. Perhaps a note to that effect would be a good idea at the very top of the talk page, and anybody could point to it as a warning to anyone new on the page who didn't already know the history (I assume there will be more and more of those with time). It would help to have several administrators keeping watch, which we seem to have now -- and thank you for that. Noroton (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

It appears as though we have a strong consensus to take action to prevent the edit warring on the Barrack Obama article. Discussion, mediation and 3RR reports have so far failed. I support article bans following User:Ncmvocalist's suggestion above. Albeit, with minor alterations. A WP:1RR limit will be placed on all the above editors (mentioned in Ncmvocalist's list), administrators will have the right to block any of the editors if they exceed this limit. No editors will be blocked at this point as this is a preventative measure. It is advised that all the editors mentioned above will avoid the Barrack Obama article and all Barrack Obama related articles to allow the article's regular editors to clean up/re-shape/and actually contribute. This edit war has gone on long enough, it's time to put an end to it. If, at any time, any of the afforementioned editors refuse to adhere to this, then finite and infinite article bans will be proposed and carried out. Any community thoughts on this? Scarian 15:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Amendment - 2 week article ban for all editors involved. This includes article and talk pages for all Barrack Obama related articles. The article needs a rest, especially at this time. We need to allow the regular contributors and maintainers to work. Any user involved voiding this will/can be blocked in short increments at the administrators discretion. Edit warring is not to be tolerated. Scarian 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If the article probation is to be applied against only the involved editors, perhaps a discreet list could be created by an uninvolved editor/admin? I can see several names that are missing from Ncmvocalist's list, but I'm certainly not an uninvolved editor here, so probably shouldn't be offering up names. I don't think there is a single editor on the article that hasn't done at least one revert during this dust up, myself included, so it'd be nice to know exactly who the probation applies to.--Bobblehead 16:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The editors named above are the most prolific of the warrers. Any more that are visibly seen to be edit warring on his article(s) will also be subjected to the same preventative measures. Does the community agree with the above sanctions? Scarian 17:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Scarian, using the word "involved" creates confusion. Bobblehead and I have certainly been "involved" in the discussions on the talk page, and I'm not a "regular" at that page because I've only been participating on the talk page for about two weeks. You do mean the editors on Ncvocalist's list when you talk about a topic ban, right? I disagree that "regular" editors of the page are the solution. On many, many other biography pages that I've seen, especially political biography articles, the "regulars" are often not providing WP: NPOV (that's not always their fault -- sometimes it's harder to figure out neutrality on a political ariticle). When I WP:CANVASSed for more editors to come to the page a while ago, editors that were much cooler stopped by, and I might try that again if it seems necessary to get a consensus on something. I've seen a lot of, ah, unusual interpretations of language on that talk page so far, so please clarify. Noroton (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, I for one agree that the article needs a rest and an article probation is necessary. I'd just like to see Andyvphil (talk · contribs), Fovean Author (talk · contribs), Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs), Loonymonkey (talk · contribs), and Brothejr (talk · contribs) added to the list. I'm also not sure if Life.temp (talk · contribs) and Quartermaster (talk · contribs) should be on the list. Both are new to the article (within the last week), so certainly haven't perpetuated the edit war over the last few months and may just be "innocent bystanders" caught up in the general bad faith that pervades the article currently, neither one is a SPA, like WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs), and seem to have block-free histories on Misplaced Pages, with Quartermaster being around since 2006. --Bobblehead 19:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

1RR, definitely. Topic ban... I dunno - I'd like to see if 1RR is enough to enable other editors to get involved and clean up the article, though I think it would be a generally good idea for a lot of these folks to sit back for a week or two. I'd add WorkerBee74 to the list - this is a clear single-purpose agenda account with 2 edit-warring blocks in less than 2 weeks. Consider User:Shem as well. I would not include Life.temp or Quartermaster, nor Noroton. MastCell  20:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 is already on Ncmv's list. The list is currently Kossack4Truth, WorkerBee74, Scjessey, Life.temp, and Quartermaster. --Bobblehead 21:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused on my mention, MastCell, and I'd probably just as soon drop the project again if my efforts on the page're portrayed as even remotely similar to what some of these disruptive editors've been pulling. To be blunt, I find "I wouldn't include Life.temp" and "add Shem" in the same sentence downright strange. Shem 22:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm on a short wikibreak at the moment, but I thought I'd just add a comment here to defend myself. I received one 12-hour block for edit warring back in April, but I have not participated in (or been reported for) edit warring since then. I would describe myself as "highly active" in talk page discussions, but I have made few edits to the actual article. I have confined my edits mostly to reverting vandalism and correcting WP:BLP violations. I think it is a little unfair that I've been lumped in with the edit warring group, and the only reason I have been given is that I "contribute to the poor atmosphere".

I can understand the desire by administrators to use a topic ban as a way to calm things down, but I think that would be a poor substitute for a little bit more administrator presence. Barack Obama is, after all, the most popular BLP on Misplaced Pages. It is hardly surprising that things can get a wee bit hectic. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to make special rules for this article, they need to be very prominently displayed. I came to the article innocently via a RFC. At the time, I didn't know it was the most viewed article on Misplaced Pages, that the edit war was so notarious it had been written about in mainstream media, or generally that the history was quite as deranged as it is. The edits I made would not be enough for a simple 3RR warning under normal conditions. The fact that you are now discussing topic-banning me shows that the current attitude regarding this article is not clear to newcomers. Life.temp (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• My agreement with Scarian's statement and amendment above has not changed. I don't think MastCell has looked through it properly still, but I've reviewed it again anyway. Please note some very minor changes in duration in the list I'd initially made, as well as the addition of 2 other names - Fovean author and lulu.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

An official 1RR for the page is fine by me and would probably be helpful. At this point I do not support topic bans, though that could change at any time. Changing to a strict 1RR is a significant change, and I propose we add to that a strict interpretation of WP:CIV on the article talk page. I think we should try those measures first, and those editors who are having trouble with those restrictions or otherwise editing disruptively can then receive topic bans. I'm not comfortable topic banning a number of accounts based on little or no evidence and I'm not sure that would help the page right now. There also does not seem to be agreement about which accounts to ban, and I don't think it's worth our time to haggle over that at this point (if we impose stricter rules that apply to everyone first, it should be fairly easy to tell which editors are able to edit within the rules and those who need a vacation from the article). Let's try some article wide remedies first and then move on to individual remedies if that's necessary.

We seem to have some agreement that a 1RR restriction is a good thing so maybe we should go ahead and impose that, but I'm not sure about the protocol for implementing it. I'm already watching the page though and am willing to help enforce 1RR and civil editing practices with blocks if necessary, which I've already made clear on the article talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of thse comments as applied to me are factually wrong. If you are going to insist on including me in this, you need to explain why. Examples. Ncmvocalist said "These suggested sanctions are of those who have actually to a great extent (and sometimes persistently) contributed to the long-term poor atmosphere". I first edited the article 4 days ago. The entirety of my so-called edit-warring consists of two reverts. Explain how 2 reverts, discussed in Talk, constitutes "extensive, persistent, long-term" anything. Scarian said: "The editors named above are the most prolific of the warrers." Two reverts is prolific edit-warring? I haven't even been given a warning by a neutral party. Life.temp (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Several warnings by neutral administrators were placed on the article Talk page before you started editing the article.

These warnings by multiple neutral admins were directed to all editors working on the article.

Including you.

You ignored them.

The first time, you deleted 732 words. The second time, after I left a final warning on your User Talk page and on the article Talk page, you deleted nearly 1,000. Both times, you deleted anything resembling criticism and controversy from the article, leaving a perfect hagiography. Any mention of Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, undeniably two of the major figures in Obama's life, was completely erased. All articles are required to comply with WP:NPOV, including articles about Messianic politicians whose controversies can be concealed in satellite articles where no one will ever read them.

As a result, the comments about you edit warring in defiance of multiple warnings are undeniably, 100% accurate.

I have started a voluntary 30-day Wikibreak from the entire topic, including the satellite articles. I signed on to the truce before I left. Everyone else has signed on for the truce except Life.temp, who apparently reserves the right to gut the article whenever he/she feels like it. Six-month topic ban for Life.temp. Anything more at this point would be admins throwing their weight around, since the rest of us have worked it out for ourselves while admins chatted and did nothing about some of the worst offenders; anything less would be a mockery of WP:NPOV. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You weren't asked to continue your personality warring here. I asked the admins involved to explain their opinions. For the record, I haven't seen any admin warnings or a truce. There is no section titled "Warning" (other than Kossack4Truth's) and no section titled "Truce." Searching the page for "warning" yields no admin warnings; searching for "truce" yields almost nothing. Life.temp (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That comment seems deliberately obtuse. The section where the truce is offered, and where everyone expressed agreement except you, is called "End of the edit war." I signed it before I got a 24-hour block, indicating that I am not going to editwar any more, so I think the block was undeserved.

But you commented in that section, you attacked the truce offered by Wikidemo and said, "That's not fine." The only one who still wants to editwar is you. Don't claim you did't know about the truce. You edited in that section, in response to Wikidemo's offer, directly beneath the offer. You rejected his offer, saying "That isn't fine," so don't tell us you didn't know about it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

← Okay, I'm a bit confused at the moment. Is the 1RR and civility probation being applied against all editors of the Barack Obama topic, or just to the editors currently on Nmcvocalist's list? Either way is fine with me, I'm just seeing mention above that the 1RR and civility probation are being applied against just the editors on Nmcvocalist's list and that it is being applied on the topic in general (which to me implies it's against everyone that decides to edit the article). --Bobblehead 15:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion at least is that 1RR and civility probation applies to the whole article, not to individual editors. I think that is very much the better route.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than voting on specific editors, which I think is going to leave a bad taste, I'd agree with Bigtimepeace that 1RR and article probation are the way to go. If some of these more... checkered editors can abide by that, then it's a win. If they can't, it will become apparent and they'll be blocked soon enough. An alternative would be to take the dispute to ArbCom, where I forsee a lengthy, ugly process resulting in a series of article bans for specific editors as well as article probation. MastCell  17:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Thanks for the clarification. --Bobblehead 17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I support MastCell's suggestion that we impose 1RR on all participants and put the Barack Obama article under Misplaced Pages:Article probation. A scheme that collects votes on restricting individual editors seems distasteful. If we are going to keep this out of Arbcom for any length of time we need a simple approach that isn't unfair to individuals. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes three admins (MastCell, EdJohnston, and myself) who support this approach. I'm not familiar with how this actually works, but I assume our model would be the community imposed restrictions on Homeopathy found over at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions? Can a few admins come to agreement on that here or does it need to be taken somewhere else? I'm going offline for the rest of the day in a little bit but just want to make clear that I fully support 1RR + article probation and am willing to help enforce that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated Suggestions by Ncmv and Scarian

NOTES ABOUT SUGGESTIONS

Suggestions are set out separately for comment. The moment consensus is reached for a suggestion by the community, or otherwise, it will be enforced. Proposed bans are for a variety of problems, such as for contribution to the poor atmosphere, edit-warring, disruption, incivility and/or the like.... All Obama-related pages that are referred to below include relevant talk pages. Any users violating bans (related to them) for the first time should be blocked for a week, and a month thereafter. In the event more than one ban is supported on a certain user, the longer ban will prevail.

Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC) &

Agreed. Scarian 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: In the interests of neutrality, shouldn't any proposed bans/blocks apply to McCain-related pages as well? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not see the point of this section and do not find it at all helpful. I think it will only serve to make the discussion more complex and difficult to resolve and possibly devolve into a flame war. We are also discussing these same issues in the previous section, and I don't see what's really different here. We already seem to have a consensus for a 1RR so I don't see why we need to discuss that, and there have been no objections to a civility probation for the article either. Both should apply to the entire article rather than to individual editors, if nothing else for the simple reason that gangloads of new editors will come to the article in the weeks and months ahead.

Above we were discussing restrictions to Barack Obama, now these proposals relate to "all Obama-related pages." I don't support that at all. There are many Obama related pages (most of which these editors don't even edit on) and applying restrictions to all of them is utterly absurd. Most are not problematic, and it is not even spelled out what "Obama-related" means.

Myself and to some extent MastCell have objected to individual topic bans at this point. All that has happened below is that they have been broken out into individual sections, which obviously does nothing to quell my objection. Honestly, what is a 2 or 3 week topic ban supposed to accomplish? I do not see how that is is helpful. The problems here are long term and will continue up through November (and beyond if Obama wins the election). Two week topic bans for random editors based on no evidence are not going to do much of anything in my view. We need stricter controls on the article itself, and those who violate those rules can then be topic banned, blocked, etc.

What is the harm in that approach? If we can agree to try that for awhile we can avoid extending this discussion unnecessarily. I don't think there is a consensus for topic bans right now, so let's hold off on them.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See also the 1RR + article probation discussion in the previous section, which if agreed to would obviate the need for this discussion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kossack4Truth banned

1) Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs) is banned from all Obama-related pages for 3 months.

Comments by uninvolved users

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - Despite giving himself a "voluntary" break from the Barrack Obama article(s) he still continues to haunt that area making a null edit on the talk page and announcing that he was still watching. I find that sort of behaviour to be unprofessional and unconstructive. Scarian 17:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

WorkerBee74 banned

2) WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs) is banned from all Obama-related pages for 2 months. (Note: this user was blocked a few days ago for edit-warring on this category of pages)

Comments by uninvolved users

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

Fovean_Author banned

3) Fovean Author (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all Obama-related pages for 1 month. (Note: this user was blocked recently for edit-warring on this category of pages)

Comments by uninvolved users

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

Scjessey and Lulu_of_the_Lotus_Eaters banned

4) Scjessey (talk · contribs) and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs) are topic-banned from all Obama-related pages for 2 weeks.

Comments by uninvolved users

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

I would accept a two-week topic ban. In fact, I have already begun a voluntary two-week "ban" of all Obama-related pages (including talk pages). I have de-watchlisted all these pages (and McCain) to avoid temptation. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think it's a bit off-balance to put me in there. My edits have all been constructive, but it's true I have a low tolerance for BS from some of above mentioned editors. I'll follow Scjessey's lead, and de-watchlist for my own sanity. LotLE×talk 19:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Quartermaster and Life.temp banned

5) Quartermaster (talk · contribs) and Life.temp (talk · contribs) are topic-banned from all Obama-related pages for 1 week.

Comments by uninvolved users

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

Oppose - Quartermaster and Life.temp seem to be innocent bystanders that were caught up in the general atmosphere of bad faith that exists on the Barack Obama article. Both editors have a very limited number of edits on the article and neither one seems to have participated in the edit warring that brought this discussion upon the article and topic in general. --Bobblehead 18:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe these individuals were placed on this list for the same reason I was - we "contributed to the poor atmosphere" (even though we didn't "edit war"). It seems to be related to "attitude" on the talk page, rather than edit warring on the article itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said.. Innocent bystanders that were caught up in the general atmosphere of bad faith that exists on the article. On any other article their actions would have been seen as normal editorial decisions, but because the first course of action on the Barack Obama article is to revert and then accuse of some sort of bias they're collateral damage here. As far as you not edit warring, you seriously need to reconsider your actions on the article. While I may agree with many of your reasonings behind your actions, you have certainly edit warred and inserted your share of incivility into the article. You've taken an overly strict interpretation of WP:BLP and used it as a hammer to try and limit the amount of negative information about Obama that is in the article and are now using that overly strict interpretation to claim that you have not edit warred. Much of what you have reverted under the guise of BLP is at worst at odds with WP:UNDUE, but is certainly not such an obvious violation of BLP that demands immediate removal from the article. The fact that you have only gotten one short block as a result of this edit war is just blind luck in that the reviewing admins on AN/3RR only looked at your edit summaries and failed to look at the content of reverts and whether or not you actually were removing obvious BLP violations. --Bobblehead 19:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1RR on certain editors on Obama-related pages

6) Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs), WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs), Fovean Author (talk · contribs), Scjessey (talk · contribs), Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs), Quartermaster (talk · contribs) and Life.temp (talk · contribs) are subject to standard WP:1RR on Obama-related pages.

Comments by uninvolved users

Proposed by Scarian. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

I have two questions:

1. How long would the 1RR policy be in effect?
2. Does the 1RR policy apply to BLP-related reverts that fall under the auspices of WP:VANDALISM and WP:GRAPEVINE?

-- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Answers:

1. Personally I think it would be logical to have it an undefined amount of time (Especially before/during/after November). Anyway, there is no need for an editor to make more than 1 revert in 24 hours. The talk page is far more constructive.
2. There is no problem with reverting edits that consist of blatant and transparent vandalism and WP:BLP violations. That is standard wiki-policy now. Scarian 17:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see, then, is what actually constitutes a "WP:BLP violation"? The "content war" has revolved around the inclusion/exclusion of details not related to the subject of the BLP. For example, "inclusionists" have demanded the addition of specific, inflammatory details about Bill Ayers so that "people can judge Obama by the company he keeps." That seems like a clear BLP violation to me, because it contravenes what is said in the criticism and praise section of WP:BLP when it states that " should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." It would seem that administrators would have to be more specific about what kind of reversions would be allowable. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The short answer to this would be the same as for vandalism - if it's debatable whether something is a BLP violation then don't violate 1RR over it. The Bill Ayers thing is not a clear cut example of a BLP violation, it is at least debatable and in my view relates more to NPOV actually. It's been the source of a huge disputed so obviously one could not violate 1RR over it. Were this restriction to be imposed (and I think it should be imposed on the whole page) you would repeatedly revert per BLP only for things like "it was rumored on the internet that Obama once went to jail" or things of that ilk (there could be tons of examples). The stuff about Ayers or Rezko and similar material in the future would need to be discussed on the talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Support, because indiscriminately placing 1RR on all the page's contributors as suggested below (including long-time productive editors) isn't necessary and would empower sock/meatpuppetry. Shem 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I don't see how a 1RR empowers sockpuppets more than 3RR - editors who use socks have an advantage in either situation. The point of an article-wide 1RR is not to punish productive and constructive editors, it's to bring some sanity to the page. There is also debate about who deserves to be under such a restriction and who does not. Sometimes I feel all of Misplaced Pages could do with a 1RR restriction, so I don't think it's too much to ask here. The good editors will have no problem holding to it and using the talk page and those who continue to edit war can be quickly identified.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Support - I think it's the best route. Mainly it will keep editors in line and they will be able to "police" themselves. Scarian 16:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose/Comment - Unless Andyvphil (talk · contribs) is included on this list I can't support restricting the number of reverts to just a limited number of users. Andyvphil and his complete inability to discuss things civily, to find a compromise, or comply with consensus that was established despite him is the one that is primarily responsible for driving the main contributors off the article. Any remedy that fails to include Andyvphil has a glaring hole in it that will only perpetuate the current atmosphere of bad faith and edit warring. --Bobblehead 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1RR on all editors on Obama-related pages

7) All users who edit on Obama-related pages are subject to standard WP:1RR on those pages.

Comments by uninvolved users

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

Support - See my comments here. That being said, a general 1RR/civility probation on the topic as a whole is probably in order as more than likely any list that is confined to a specific number of users will grow quickly the farther we get into the election cycle. --Bobblehead 18:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

2 week ban on certain editors on Obama-related pages

8) Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs), WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs), Fovean Author (talk · contribs), Scjessey (talk · contribs), Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs), Quartermaster (talk · contribs) and Life.temp (talk · contribs) are banned from making edits on Obama-related pages for 2 weeks.

Comments by uninvolved users

A proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

2 week ban on all editors on Obama-related pages

9) All users are banned from making edits on Obama-related pages for 2 weeks.

Comments by uninvolved users

Proposed (by Scarian). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

1. Totally opposed. I don't have time to respond to the other proposals right now, but this one should be a non-starter. As is the case with long-term full protection, this goes completely against the spirit of a wiki. Shem 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I would oppose this as well. How would this be any different from full-page protection? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Might as well just put the article in full protection if a total ban is imposed. --Bobblehead 18:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility parole on all editors on Obama-related pages

10) All users who make edits on Obama-related pages are subject to standard civility parole on those pages.

Comments by uninvolved users

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

1. Support; the sooner, the better. Shem 17:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - This is badly needed. It is near impossible to get consensus built on disputed content with all the name calling and general lack of good faith. --Bobblehead 18:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)