Misplaced Pages

Ryan ends his complaint by a request for comment (what has occurred here is an informal RfC). There have been many comments, and 2 sources documenting the reasons why a ban should be made. GHcool's evidence is ancient history, a few diffs from two years to eight months ago, and so wholly irrelevant to a complaint about PR's recent behaviour. His whole effort to get at PR is an abuse of appropriate evidence and proper process. Jayjg's evidence consists of innuendos about SPA accounts and sockpuppetry, blather (WP:SOAP per tu quoque) over Bogdanor and Kastner which is neither here nor there, since Jayjg, as shown, misread PR's remark; plus two elements of evidence of violation of BLP recently. All we have then, is two putative instances of violating BLP to secure checkmate, a permanent community ban. What do they consist in? Ayaan Hirsi Ali's public record is compared, on a talk page, to Shahak's, to illustrate by analogy bias in that I/P article. Mitchell Bard is contested as a proper source, correctly, since the remark quoted from him is obvious nonsense not fit for a serious encyclopedia article: and it is on a talk page. So what's the problem? So far we have these two bits, and the points made by PR would never form the basis for an ANI complaint had anyone else made them. Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A Review of the evidence. What evidence?

1.Ryan calls for a community ban. His complaint is that mentoring Palestine Remembered has failed to stop PR from push(ing) his pro Palestine POV on numerous articles.

This is startling. The majority of editors who underwrite a permanent ban will not be offended, I think, if I remark that they ‘push their pro-Israeli POVs’. No one on the other side regards User:Jayjg as anyone other than an edit-warrior with a powerful pro-Israeli POV. That is attested in every edit I have seen from him over the past two years. In the rules, as far as I understand them, there is nothing wrong with pushing a POV, most I/P articles are compromises (messy) made by parties with opposed POVs, which each side pushes. To deny this is to deny the obvious. Therefore, Ryan’s complaint, expressed thus, suggests a misapprehension about how I/P articles are written.

(b) He's well known to edit war to get his point across. This is vague. Does it refer to past reputation or to present behaviour? If the latter, then this must be documented. Anything to do with PR's past behaviour is wholly immaterial to the ban requested, which must logically relate to recent behaviour.

(c) He was subject to an arbitration case because of a habit in using extremely poor sources to push his POV - the arbitration case was closed with no action. G-Dett replied to this in the following terms, and no one has challenged their veracity:-

'what a load of hogwash and balderdash. PR was subject to an arbitration case because a rogue admin made bogus claims about his sources – claims which were unanswerably discredited within an hour. His accuser lacked the decency and honesty to retract his fatuous accusations, and Ryan lacked – and continues to lack – the competence to understand what happened in the first place.’

Since no one has challenged G-dett's recall of the instance, Ryan's remark self-cancels, and can be thrown out of court. In fact if anything it testifies more to the behaviour of the 'rogue administrator' who happens here to be the chief prosecutor for the case now under consideration against PR.

(d) he continues to make poorly sourced contributions, and edit wars to keep them in place. This repeats (b) and is unsubstantiated by recent evidence. Ryan’s point is also that numerous editors have failed to get PR to toe the ‘right path’. Perhaps true, but numerous editors who appear to enjoy hauling PR under administrative sanctions, have no idea of what the ‘right path’ is, since they are happy POV pushers themselves.

2.Ryan calls for comments. One comment was that Ryan’s own complaint comes after Jayjg had worked Ryan’s page to raise, for the umpteenth time, apparent problems with PR’s return to editing. I haven't checked it, but then again, no one has protested the veracity of the assertion. Ryan himself did not produce evidence for his claims, but, subsequently, when Jayjg made his own case, Ryan underwrote Jayjg’s suit, as containing more or less the gravamen of his own charges. Thus functionally, Ryan’s complaint is a proxy complaint authored by Jayjg.

Administrator Blueboy96, Horologium, Administrator Coren, JzG (Guy), JoshuaZ Canadian Monkey all immediately supported a site or topic ban, though no evidence has been forthcoming. They trusted Ryan’s description, or recalled PR’s archival record. Durova is commendably neutral.

Presumptive, asks for evidence, as does ChrisO. John Nagle checks 100 recent edits and can’t see the problem. LamaLoLeshLa asks why at this particular point is PR’s past beinfg raked over? Where is the new evidence for this old complaint?

Only with GHcool is an attempt at supplying evidence made. The evidence is:

(a)Ghcool’s opinion that PalestineRemembered's edits are largely disgraceful.
This emerges as the only reason GHcool has to press for PR's ban, personal dislike.

(b) He has been guilty of calling Zionists proud of their murderous racism

The link takes us to December 2006 where in reply to Robert E.Rubin’s attempt to discredit the fact that Norman Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors, PR replied:

'There's a serious problem protecting the BLP of anyone who has criticised Israel, even if they have credentials as good as Norman Finkelstein. It's very, very wearing to take out, over and over again, these unsubstantiated and utterly pointless edits.Meanwhile, of course, it's impossible to insert any evidence against Zionist politicians, no matter how well referenced and indeed proud they may be of their murderous racism. PalestineRemembered 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghcool thus distorts the record. PR had it in for Zionist politicians (one presumes Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon <BLP vio removed>, not Zionists(potentially all patriotic Israelis). The remark was in any case duly punished with a 24-hour ban, which was fair enough, though it should have been longer for the solecism in PR's remark. This is again evidence from 1 and a half years ago.

(c) spreading Zionist conspiracy theories
The link refers to a comment made 8 months ago, to Jaakobou:

'I trust you'll not present yourself as having any understanding of the developing situation. The Saudi inititative is a two-state proposal that leaves Israel intact within the Green Line borders, but it does have to abide by International law (as mostly written or re-written by the US in the aftermath of 1945). And the Saudi proposal has more support amongst Palestinians than does the undefined 'two-state solution' they were offered in that poll. It might be time to start writing this article to WP:policy and reliable sources. PR 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth this completely acceptable statement has to do with the crime of spreading ‘Zionist conspiracy theories’ is unclear. This is a howler, and no one picks it up.

(d) comparing Zionists with Nazis,

Again, the link goes through a time-capsule back to December 2006, and in reply to an editor who asks ‘why no mention of terrorist attacks on Jews’, Palestine remembered wrote:

You could probably write a number of very good articles on oppression aimed at Jews. Unfortunately, most of your allies will either be Zionists (who are provably a lot nastier and more dangerous than anything we've seen since 1945) or anti-Zionists (who are appalled that the Holocaust is used as justification for the crimes of Israel). I'm not sure how you'll get round that one - you could start by expressing your outrage at Zionists who, whatever crimes are alleged against Israel, immediately blame the Jews. They fail to recognise that the Jews have suffered quite enough from false allegations in the last 2000 years. PalestineRemembered 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This again is malicious misrepresentation, since there is no equation of Zionists with Nazis. However you wish to construe what PR is saying, note that PR writes 'Zionists who..' not 'Zionists, who...' This now becomes a pattern with Ghcool’s evidence. None of these diffs support the dramatic tabloid titles he supplies them with in glossing their ostensible content.

(e) comparing Israeli historians with Holocaust deniers,

(e.i)Note 11.Takes us to an innocuous exchange of views that are far more nuanced that what Ghcool would have us believe. It dates to September 2007

Ghcool is satisfied with the state of the ‘causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus’. PR replies.

'I think it's terrible, gravely distorting what historians say about this business. We seem to have quotations in there from "historians" even less credible than David Irvine. We have historians who believe one thing quoted as if they believed the opposite - and editors claiming that that is a perfectly proper thing to do. PalestineRemembered 18:29, 9 September 2007

I.e. David Irving is not a credible historian, since he is a denier. Neither is Schechtman, since he, in a different vein, denies obvious facts (and creates malicious untruths passed off as historiography)

There are two David Irvings. One was the highly regarded historian of the German military praised by all academic specialists in the 1960s, the other is the Holocaust-denier. PR is referring to a number of Israeli historians of the early postwar period who were responsible for creating a completely false mythical account of the reasons for the exodus, a myth exposed as early as 1961 but which was repeated right down to the 1980s, and which found honourable mention in the aforesaid article.

(e.ii) This refers to an exchange on Jan 14 eight months ago. PR writes:-

Yet again, we agree. But I worry the ArbCom don't know what appalling souces get rammed into I-P conflict articles. We quote Joseph Schechtman in that article saying "Until ... May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." I'm confident (and User:GHcool has never denied) that that clip, alone, is worse than anything ever seen from David Irving. While illiterates stalk our articles, the I-P conflict articles, and the conduct surrounding them, will disgrace us. This is a problem we can fix - but only when the ArbCom protects scholars like User:Tiamut. And also User:Nishidani, recently hounded from the project when his patience and good-nature was trashed. PR 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the lather, PalestineRemembered again considers Schechtman worse than David Irving. Both deny or affirm absurd things. Pr quotes a notorious piece of propagandistic nonsense by Schechtman, with no basis in the historical record. No one there confuted this. What Schechtman wrote was crap, and Ghcool is only offended at the comparison with David Irving. So?

(e.iii) Again Ghcool takes us down the time tunnel, January 2008. He complains of this remark on the talk page of ‘Jewish Lobby’:-

I'm somewhat handicapped discussing hate-sources because I avoid them like the plague. But I'd be surprised if David Duke is as bad (either on grounds of hate or grounds of "gross historical fabrication") than two sources we seem to use a lot, Joseph Schechtman and Shmuel Katz. The former is even quoted in a WP article with this astonishing nastiness: Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed. (From his book The Arab Refugee Problem) Prove to me that David Duke have ever come out with anything so outlandish. PR 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, PR, though guilty of hyperbole (actually Katz and Schechtman can, with extreme care, be harvested for information, as I once noted, though one must keep in mind their partisanship for terrorism) is expressing contempt for Irving and Duke, but saying to pro-Israeli editors, if you can’t stand lies against your community by holocaust-deniers, why push rubbish by Schechtman and Katz (both associated historically with an organization, the Irgun, that used terroristic methods to achieve statehood) that fabricates vicious untruths about Arabs comparable to the vicious untruths fabricated by Holocaust deniers against Jews. This is the rhetorical strategy. It may be fervid, ineptly put, but the technique is normal in persuasion by analogy.

(f) committing logical fallacies and spreading disinformation left and right. -GHcool (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think this needs comment. Most of the newspaper sources from mainstream press that, for some, form a staple of I/P information, don’t stand a moment’s scrutiny for logical coherence. If logical fallacies were the basis for including or excluding editors, wiki would lose 95% of its regular contributers, from the most brilliant to the average editor. The information on PR provided by Ghcool therefore is void of substance, full of thin historical reminiscence of past behaviour that, in context (don’t read the bolded green patch in the link: read the whole flow and all comments for each diff) has not been exceptional on I/P articles in the past. Strongly worded, opinionated, but to the point, and often rationally argued or sourced reliably.

Then, LamaLoLeshla notes that his tabloid headings are not backed up by the diffs. Horologium tries to be helpful, but his indications in no way clarify Ghcool’s bad diffs. Since Ghcool’s charges are ancient history, Coppertwig twigs us to a copper in the wings, as Ryan did, by telling us to at Jayjg’s forthcoming evidence based on PR’s recent editing.

I in turn make a point about the vagueness of these charges, all old history, no evidence. Jaakobou, also notes that the diffs are insufficient. Both PR and I have had a past record of conflict with him, and his remark at this point is to be thoroughly commended. He is judging this case on the merits of evidence, reading what is said closely, and making his own call. Our differences are enormous, but here is an editor who, though he has a very convinced pro-Israeli point-of-view, is measuring the evidence, against the claims, by his own lights. PhilKnight agrees with Jaakobou's call, but suggests a 3 month ban, nothing as drastic as that originally proposed.

(3)As the case for a community ban wobbles towards a crash, Jayjg finally shows his hand.

(3.a)Palestine remembered is a self-confessed SPA, a propagandist and soapboxer. Like Ghcool Jayjg has a perfect memory and can testify that PR has never made, even once, an edit that is not propaganda.

(3.b)A technicality allows Jayjg to raise a specious impression that PR is guilty of sockpuppetry. It is nothing more than that, a play on words, used for the subliminal effect 'sockpuppetry' has on administrators. Wink,wink, nudge,nudge

(3.c)Here we finally have contemporary evidence from the last week. WP:BLP violation against "the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali". Jay jigs up the following tremendously damning smoking gun from PR's recent edit.

'Shahak did less to Judaism (in far more measured terms) than the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali do to Islam. Compare the two for reliability - Hirsi Ali is known to have lied (she's admitted it publicly) about what Islam did to her life, re-inventing great portions of it even including her name and date of birth. (That was in order to leave the perfectly safe Germany and settle in Holland). She's either chucked up or mysteriously distanced herself from the plum think-tank job she landed in Washington .... safer back in Eurabia than Washington? Whereas Shahak is more respectable in every way, surviving Belsen (1943 aged 10), going to Palestine, serving in an elite regiment of the IDF. He went on to become a professor of chemistry at Hebrew University. I think it's only in 1967 he came to question his faith. Nishidani proves again (above) that Shahak's criticisms of his religion (while hard hitting) bear no resemblance to those of Hirsi Ali, they're veritable models of reason in comparison. Now compare the two for the tone of our treatment - we quote Ayaan Hirsi Ali enthusiastically (as do all sorts of blatant Islamophobes and racists) seemingly delighted to have her say of Islam "Violence is inherent in Islam, it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder". In Shahak's case, we ignore the points he has to make, pour scorn on his testimony, and quote his critics saying "world's most conspicuous Jewish antisemite... Like the Nazis before him". Then we further defame Shahak because his words were picked up by racists - even though we know it's completely irrelevant. Moshe Sharrat, 2nd Prime Minister of Israel is also extensively quoted by the antisemitic - so? It's almost as if we're writing the Great Soviet Encyclopedia on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. PR 17:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what is the enormous crime by wiki criteria in this first piece of evidence for PR’s horribly recalcitrant propagandistic editing? Jayjg, read the whole Shahak page and archives, has it in for Shahak. Shahak was a Popperian liberal, a Holocaust survivor and secular critic of the ultra-orthodox threat to the development of Israel as a modern democracy. You cannot even begin to understand his critique unless you are familiar with Popper's 2 volume masterpiece, 'The Open Society and its Enemies' and Hadas's theories about Platonic influence via Hellenism on certain currents of rabbinical thinking. He wrote several books on the oddities of rabbinical halakhic and doctrinal traditions. Because he translated and divulgated extensive swathes of opinion from rabbinical sources that will strike most secular minds as bizarre, in a state where Judaic religious identity is still not disentangled from Israeli Jewish identity, Shahak came in for a huge amount of flak. Jayjg has supported cramming the page with poor sources that smear, insinuate and slander the man. Many, myself included, have given up and allowed the mess to stand as a monument to the kind of editing Jayjg rides shotguhn over, while he jumps at people like PR for not respecting Wiki ideals, and retailing 'propaganda'.

PR simply said that proIsraeli I/P editors are enamoured of what Ayaan Hirsi Ali says of Islam, yet hate what Shahak says of Orthodox rabbinical thought. Both often say the same thing, that these respective religions shackle human liberty with the queerest of mystical theories. Hirsi Ayaan Ali is hailed as a heroic figure because her enemy is Islam. Shahak is despised as a Jewish antisemite because his enemy was a mode of rabbinical doctrine and thinking he thought tyrannical and totalitarian. Hirsi Ayaan Ali is known to have lied (PR says) and this does not alter the esteem in which she is held. Shahak is said by his bitter enemies to have lied, and this is showcased on his page. The point PR makes is the point made with Irving. I.e., pro-Israeli editors get on their high horses when Israel or Judaism is attacked, in this case by a Jewish critic, and allow the page to carry a large amount of preposterous insinuations from unreliable sources, whereas figures like Hirsi Ayaan Ali critical of Islam (Israel’s putative enemy) are left untouched, when not hailed for their critical boldness in taking on religious obscurantists. To entertain both positions is hypocritical, the duplicity of double standards is disturbing among editors of I/P articles, because one set of criteria is used with regard to Israel, another set used with regard to Israel’s putative enemies or antagonists, even when the situations in both cases are strikingly analogous. PR is thus vigorously deploring nationalist bias in I/P articles. Jayjg thinks this, apparently, deplorable, as deplorable as a man like Shahak, whom the Council of Foreign relations in Washington thought highly enough to consult with regularly over the 1990s. This is, finally, an analogy, of considerable merit, made on a talk page to illustrate what is wrong with Jayjg's editing, and not a violation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's biography.

(3.d)'a BLP violation against Mitchell Bard'

Again as before the following comment occurs on a Talk Page (Arab Citizens of Israel). The contested remark is:-

Bard comes across as a serious propagandist with a particular interest in denial. His "Myths and Facts" contains such gems as MYTH: "Settlements are an obstacle to peace." He should try and persuade Condoleeza Rice of that. CAMERA's single-mindedness and attitude to integrity doesn't need further discussion, there's been an RfC on it and other action. PR 06:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well? Bard is not a reliable source. The remark he is cited as making is a nonsense, since every Israeli government (bar Netanyahu’s perhaps) has, in its negotiations, allowed that there is a problem with settlements, and every world body consulted thinks so too, since they are not on land legally belonging to the state of Israel. With comments like that, one can only reply: ‘Non c’è trippa per gatti’. PR’s remark is innocuous, and a correct call to boot. It is not a BLP violation of Mitchell Bard to say, on a talk page where his irrelevant views are pushed, that he is a ‘serious propagandist’ who denies what Israeli negotiators admit to be the truth, i.e. that settlements are the central issue of contention, and an obstacle to be overcome, in peacetalks. Talk pages are full of such comment, whenever bad sources from second raters in the commentariat are being pushed in.

(3.e)'some sort of weird attacks on Paul Bogdanor'

(3.e.i) refers to a long discussion agreeing with another poster, on technical questions of branding people ‘deniers’ of genocide. It concludes:-

Lastly, there are other examples which must look perilously close to denial - it's difficult to imagine that the claims made in this republished 1962 leaflet (?) are taken very seriously by anyone who know anything of this case. PR 09:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(3.e.ii)Interacting with Relata refero on his talk page, PR mentions Paul Bogdanor:-

Hi Relata - I came across this from Paul Bogdanor's web-site - he's re-publishing a 1962 pamphlet (?) that looks pretty much like gross historical distortion to me (everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis - and almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens). I then discovered that his reliability was recently discussed here. From the WP article on Bogdanor I found and checked The 200 lies of Chomsky, much of which also appears to me to be gravely distorted. I wondered if this discussion should be taken to the board again. PR 13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what’s the ruckus about this, where's the huge violation of wiki policies involved here. A note on Paul Bopgdanor asking for a second opinion. Bogdanor is a hack writer, without any competence on Kastner, or anything else to do with I/P articles (in Jayjg’s own severe standards on WP:RS) and PR asked for advice to confirm her own reasonable impressions. Those who track and sort out who’s saying what to whom on I/P articles have clipped this out as damning evidence, of what? That PR, like a large part of the serious commentariat, thinks anything Bogdanor has to say can be safely ignored without drastic loss of wisdom?

Jayjg protests at PR saying 'Everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated. He thinks, evidently that some people do not agree that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis. But Everybody does agree, however, that Kastner collaborated with Nazis, since he did. And to say he didn’t would be to controvert a huge mass of contemporary documentation. It is not a claim, it is a matter of fact. In the second part of PR's remark to which Jayjg takes exception, we read:

almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens.

What Jayjg ignores, crucially, is that almost. Ignoring that almost wilfully then allows him to make a Mountain out of a non-existent molehill, a fuss about the ostensible exception to PR's generalization. i.e. Anna Porter’s 'Kazstner's Train: The True Story of Rezsö Kasztner, Unknown Hero of the Holocaust', which argues that Kastner was a hero. So? PR said almost, not everyone. Almost, Jayjg, in English usage here, means, contextually, almost everyone (except Anna Porter, for example). I won’t go into the Kastner case, and the large literature on that episode, as, I think, Relata refero redmarks, that it is a very complex case (the tradition behind sacrificing a large community to save a few however has been studied, not least by Israel Shahak, a taboo he and Raul Hilberg worried over all their lives, and for which many have never forgiven them for having voiced their malaise publicly) but I would suggest that Jayjg instead of whipping up froth and foam out of PR’s truism, meditate on the interview his link directs us to where Anna Porter is quoted as saying:

'He's the only Jewish Holocaust survivor who saved lives. There isn't anybody else really.'

I.e. Porter who shouts her ignorance in this remark, is also saying that of the 2 to 4 million Jews who survived the Holocaust, no one, except Kastner, lifted a finger to save a fellow Jew. And you have the brashness to assert, after reading this extraordinary generalization, that PR makes remarks characterized by tendentious nonsense?

(3.f)Jayjg concludes his shabby brief with the following ex cathedra judgement:'Tendentious nonsense . . characterizes the editor behind PalestineRemembered it's his dogged and dogmatic persistence; he waited out previous lengthy blocks, and returned from them completely unchanged. I see no reason to think a lengthier block will produce a novel result. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

To use that language on the strength/weakness of the ostensible evidence, rigged up out of a few lame diffs, against another wikipedian is probably a violation of WP:CIVIL. All I can see here is an attempt to finish unsettled old scores, a vendetta, personal dislike, and factitious material jerryrigged to waste another editor, whose faults, acknowledged by many, are venial, and certainly not conspicuous, in the record placed before us here. Nothing adduced here warrants such comments on PR's recent behaviour as both GHcool and Jayjg have attempted to document it. This is, therefore, a farce.

But, in fine, Jayjg, examining this travesty of evidence, one can only sigh with a slight infraction of metrical proprieties, with Horace (Serm. Lib,I, 1, 69-70), in parsing the intemperate language and characterisations of congenitially poor editing you have brandished here against PR: Quid derides? Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur.Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Palestine Remembered's edits are frequently out of proportion to the sources which he cites. he often writes with clear political predilections and agendas. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But these topics are politically very sensitive and there are equally valid but completely different opinions in the reliable sources. Compare PR's behavior to your own behavior some time ago on the Global Warming page. In that case the reliable sources (i.e. the peer reviewed sources and not the unreliable blogs) are very clear, yet we have to put up with editors who refuse to recognize the basic facts. See here for a recent RFC on such a problematic editor. Count Iblis (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

gee, thanks. not only do i get a whole new editor casting aspersions on me, it's on a whole new topic to boot. thanks so much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to your Armada? :) Count Iblis (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Count Iblis, your insertion of irrelevancies and non sequitirs here, in order to throw aspersions at me, seems a bit uncivil and not completely appropriate here. We are trying to discuss specific topics here. (By the way, if your armada reference was meant to be humorous, I can take some wry humor here as well as anyone here, but it did not appear that way, and seemed like an unfriendly act. I don't mind some off-topic conversation, but it seemed like some sudden negative material unrelated to the topic at hand. if you are trying to strike a light note, I feel you should try to do so differently.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me exlain this a bit better then. You wrote "Palestine Remembered's edits are frequently out of proportion to the sources which he cites. he often writes with clear political predilections and agendas". My reply to you, based on your conduct on the GW page can be found here Count Iblis (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your remarks ARE AD HOMINEM AND TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. I would appreciate it if you would please try to stck to the point. Your remarks have no relation to the topic under discussion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me stick to the point then. If you think it is ok. to invite editors from the "Conservatism in the US" page to come over to the Global Warming page, which is primarily about the science of Global Warming, not politics, and then defend that by saying "I guess our main difference is that I don't view this only as a science article, but as a societal/political topic as well.", then what is PR doing wrong when he brings the Palestinian POV in articles about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Count Iblis (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, it sure is great to see how well-expressed you are...(sarcasm). your entire approach to this is completely counter-productive. you are beuing extremely contentious. ok, I have no desire to reply to anything which you have stated. are you trying to send the message that you disagree with my action? ok, you win, since I have no desire to reply to your questions which are phrased in a completely non-productive and contentious way.

you have completely ignored the issue here, and brought up concerns about my past actions in a way which is completely counter to any norms of productive discussions. I find your approach completely unhelpfu, and decline to reply. Ok, you win. Yay! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, to answer your question, the two situations are NOT ANALOGOUS. So your points do not in any way refute the valid concerns which I raised. your method of discussing this is totally one-dimensional and contentious. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

I'd like to bring us back to the criteria for a community-wide or topic-ban. What are indeed the criteria? Cheating, and edit-warring, PR says. I'd have to agree with him/her that I don't see evidence to that effect. So, please, as someone who's only been here for a few months, could someone explain to me, with an emphasis on recent concerns, first, what the specific charges are here which merit permanent banning, and second, offer support. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy mother of pearl, that was long Nishidani. I'll try to be much briefer:

1. I actually do know a fair bit about Kastner and the allegations raised regarding him, having written most of the Malchiel Gruenwald article and contributed significantly to the Rudolf Vrba article. No, not "everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated". Kastner negotiated with the Nazis, trying to make a deal to trade Allied goods for Jewish lives. Whether or not this negotiation ever had a chance of succeeding is a matter for debate amongst historians, and there are some writers who think that Kastner knew they had no chance, and was only in it for himself - Vrba and Gruenwald primary among them. However, that is certainly not the consensus among historians, far from it. Yehuda Bauer certainly does not agree, nor does Martin Gilbert. But if Nishidani thinks that "almost everyone" thinks that Kastner was a collaborator who betrayed hundreds of thousands of Jews, and that Porter's award-winning book is bunk, let him produce the many reliable historians who say so. And no, despite your citing Adolf Eichmann as a reliable source on Kastner, I nevertheless do not consider him to be one.
2. Aayan Hirsi Ali, Mitchell Bard, and Paul Bogdanor are all living people, and Misplaced Pages discussion regarding them is covered by the WP:BLP policy, regardless of your personal opinions regarding them.
3. PalestineRemembered claimed that his account was a "legitimate" SPA, used to edit I-P articles. Since he is now using the account to edit other articles, it is no longer a legitimate SPA, but instead, merely a second account, which in Misplaced Pages terminology, is called a "sockpuppet". It no longer possess the alleged "legitimacy" it once claimed.

Finally, regarding your claim that "Jayjg, every edit of yours I have observed over two years looks like a defence of a national image interest", in the past month I have written these two articles: Temple Sinai (Oakland, California), East Midwood Jewish Center, brought the following article I created to GA status: Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, created three Did You Know articles, including Congregation Beth Israel (New Orleans, Louisiana) and Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania), completely re-written and tripled the size of Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem to save it from deletion, written Congregation Beth Israel (Gadsden, Alabama), Temple Beth Israel (Niagara Falls, New York), Congregation Beth Israel (Honesdale, Pennsylvania), Temple Beth Israel (Bergen County, New Jersey), and 34 stubs. Your powers of observation do not appear to be very good. Jayjg 02:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, In regards to point 3, could you possibly point out where the evidence is that:

1. PR uses multiple accounts; and
2. simply having multiple accounts is considered sock-puppetry? My reading of WP:SOCK's lead suggests otherwise.

It seems a pretty big leap to go from "What used to be an SPA is now editing other areas of Misplaced Pages" to "The user is deceptively abusing sock-puppet accounts". Even if PR did have another account, I would see no problem, as long as never the twain shall meet.

-- Mark Chovain 02:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I had always believed from his statement that he was an SPA editing only I-P related articles that he was declaring PalestineRemembered to be a secondary account, as per Misplaced Pages:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, reason #1. I see now that it was an assumption on my part. Perhaps he can clarify. Jayjg 03:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh... he said he is (or was) a "single-purpose account", which is what we call people who show up only to promote their band, categorize railroads by state, or block bad usernames. It says nothing about having another account. --NE2 04:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just stated that I now see it was merely an assumption on my part, based on my quite possibly erroneous inference that he was using the account for Misplaced Pages:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, reason #1. Jayjg 05:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Short-version. Judging by the evidence so far, to file for a community ban on ANI without evidence that stands up to scrutiny looks like barratry to me.

Long-version. Reply to Jayjg I'll answer in Hysteron-proteron sequence, for convenience.

'(My) powers of observation do not appear to be very good'

Perhaps. What I do have is a fair competence in construing sentences in a few languages to determine what they mean, and how, in a sequence of discursive exchanges, the logical content of the respective sentences flows. You make the same mistake above as you did with PR's comment on Kastner. I said, addressing you, 'every edit of yours I have observed over two years' . You now list many edits you have made which I haven't observed, in order to disprove a generalisation made strictly in terms of my own experience. Since I don't track you, but merely note what you do on pages I edit, I restrict myself to that. So, as is, unfortunately, normal in low-key banter, there is little trace of logical coherence between what I stated, which remains true, and what you argue in a specious reply, which addresses something I never said. The hypothetical statement, which by your misprision, you attribute to me and then rebut, takes the form, 'Every edit you have made on Misplaced Pages, Jayjg, looks like a defence of a national/ethnic interest'. Since I never said this, your reply, while interesting, does not answer to what I said.

I know a lot of people here hunt each other, check each other's logs, email around, etc. I don't. I make my calls strictly (if naturally subjectively) on the evidence of what I see. Permit me to add. That you enrich wiki with many contributions on Jewish topics is something you can justifiably be proud of. That your edits on anything regarding Palestinians overwhelmingly strike many others as bordering on a pretextual (i.e.wikilawyering) censoriousness that seriously damages the highest aim of this collaborative endeavour, (encyclopedicity) may equally yield a sense of self-satisfaction. It would be ungenerous to deny the justifiable pride with which you document your contributions to the Jewish side of wikipedia. It would be dishonest to hide one's feeling that the satisfactions of impoverishing otherwise good work on Palestinians are to be deplored. To illustrate (hmm.tracking me?), since Fiamma Nirenstein makes films for Italian TV, and endlessly dominates talkshows here on Palestinian terrorism (is it a violation of BLP to say here that she never allows anyone to get a word in edgewise?), that edit I made months ago on her page, indicating that she lives in Gilo, on the West Bank, is pertinent. It simply allows the reader who may check, to know that Nirenstein happens to be, herself, a 'settler' on Palestinian territory. I see last night you have eliminated it, I can imagine with, let me be ironical, a mow of triumphant schadenfreude?. Nirenstein will thank you. People who know nothing of her background will now check wiki and not know that when she speaks of settlers, she has a conflict of interest. Good job.

Kastner. Collaborate? Cooperate? In the first edition of his masterpiece, Raul Hilberg uses the words interchangeably. Later, he preferred 'cooperate', because, I presume 'cooperate' lacks certain wartime nuances associated with 'collaborate'. Substantively, however, c'est la même différence.

Your remarks on PR's sparse comments re Kastner make up (since they gather in Paul Bogdanor etc.) almost half of your comments, which were supposed to supply serious evidence. They are (a)immaterial to any brief on PR's putative violations of WP rules, except if one wishes to raise a comber's lather over WP:SOAP. (b) You are contesting the veracity of a generalization made by PR on a talk page. That's within your rights, but on the relevant talk page. At least half of those editing pages I am familiar with do not seem to have any background knowledge of the subject, but simply take off from reading preexisting links on the page. That's why one needs extensive comments on Talk pages, such as, in this case, PR provided, esp. with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

You will differ with PR on Kastner, as, in major key, Raul Hilberg differed with Yehuda Bauer on these issues. To make a challengeable, historically questionable, generalization (were this the case, which is arguable) on a talk page does not constitute a violation of wiki rules. (Sir Martin, an extraordinary historian, is a generalist on this, and not pertinent, by the way). You did make a major error in construing almost everyone as everyone, and in generalizing from a statement that syntactically allowed for the very exception you then adduced to rebut PR, you committed a serious oversight of construal and logic, which sunk your subsequent argument about Paul Bogdanor and Anna Porter. You now say, standing corrected, that even almost everyone is not true. Even were that so, nothing is altered. PR was entitled to make that judgement on a talk page.

Therefore, though it is absolutely immaterial to the question under review, and should never have been raised in the first place, I'll respond to your remarks on Kastner. The point is indeterminable, since it depends on a subjective value judgement, how third parties view the decision of one Jew to save himself, his family and 1600 other Jews, in exchange for collaborating/cooperating with Nazis (because deemed inevitable) 450,000 other Jews to die unwittingly. A variation on Sophie's Choice. Jews who descended from those he and the Judenrat saved, will thank him. Non-descendents of the 450,000 Jews (Jewish Communists and the poor were often the first to be sacrificed) are not around to express their aborted feelings. More than 1 in 40 or 50 would probably have survived had the Judenräte dropped their age-old 'Am Yisrael chai' outlook, and told everyone, rich and poor, affines and strangers in the Jewish communities alike, to scram, shoot back, refuse to make, let alone wear the yellow star, since they were to be murdered, instead of conning them about new prospects for emigration in the East. Kastner's choice bartered several thousand for half a million. Some think one should refuse to play god, if asked to do so by the scum under Satan's hegemony in a topsy-turvy world where hell rules paradise. Kastner's choice is understandable, to some, perhaps. But there is nothing heroic in it, as it appears Porter's book argues. Faced with this dilemma, Adam Czerniaków blew out his brains. I wish he had not wasted the shot, and asked for a final interview with, and killed, Hans Frank instead. The result would have been the same, but had the likes of Kastner shot at the Eichmanns of this world, they would have set an heroic example for their communities, instead of deceiving the overwhelming majority to march in lockstep towards that 'elsewhere' the Kastners they trusted knew to be Auschwitz. It has been often argued by eruditely reasonable men that, as a consequence, in Israel, extreme overcompensation for that fatal error of compliance under conditions of Holocaust is what has shattered every prospect for a wholly uninvolved people, the Palestinians, in their struggle for statehood (yes, WP:SOAP).

As for Bard and Bogdanor, this is an encyclopedia that aspires to quality. Neither of them even nudges the midget's calypso bar for intelligent analysis of I/P issues. If PR saw efforts to use them on general articles, (s)he did well to protest, on Talk, at the use of factitious, blindly partisan sources. You are, rather exquisitely, hoist by your own petard here: since elsewhere you refuse to allow any citation from any academic, even of world-wide repute, on a topic he hasn't appropriate doctoral qualifications for, you cannot hold PR hostage over BLP for applying exactly the same criterion (which you yourself insist on) when PR notes someone pushing Bogdanor or Bard. You roast PR for dismissing quarter-baked minds in a tiresome commentariat on some pages, and, with what looks like a theatrical volte-fa(r)ce for bemused onlookers like myself, exclude first-rate minds (David Shulman, Ian Lustick to cite just two examples) on others. You are culpable here of pushing WP:BLP to defend bad sources (on a talk page discussion), that favour Israel, while availing yourself of WP:RS, in the strictest imaginable definition, to keep eminently good sources from being harvested for other (Palestinian) articles. One should not, as here, use the wiki rulebook as a convenience tool, to be cherry-picked for strategic advantages, according to what you yourself want to see, or not see, on a page. PR's analogy of Shahak's disgraceful treatment, which you support, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was a very intelligent piece of talk commentary, ìlluminating for the way it brought out the scandalous partisan nature of ethnic-interest editing on I/P pages. People should not have the rulebook thrown at them when they make intelligent remarks. Wiki is not a democracy, but it ain't Aldous Huxley's morocratic dystopia, with the intelligent comfortably enisled off the soma-doped mainland, either (so far). Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re your comments to Avi further above and to Jayjg here: I suggest sticking to verifiable facts only and avoiding colourful language speculating on editors' motives or emotions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, I guess I should thank you for following up your previous 4,200 word post with a comparatively terse one of only 1,500 words. I'll also try to be even more brief that before.

1. "Co-operate" and "collaborate" are indeed different, and Kastner bargained to save 1 million Jews in return for Allied goods, not 1,600 Jews in return for 450,000. The claim that Kastner's true goal was the latter rather than the former was advanced by Vrba, an incredible and heroic figure, but one nonetheless wedded to views that most historians reject, including both Bauer and Hilberg; when confronted with the fact that his estimate of the number of Jews killed in Auschwitz was twice that of respected Holocaust historians, Vrba replied "Hilberg and Bauer don't know enough about the history of Auschwitz or the Einsatzgruppen." More to the point, PalestineRemembered's claim was demonstrably and obviously false, exaggerated soapboxing and hyperbole made solely for the purpose of demonizing Zionists, particularly those who had a hand in creating Israel. You have not "corrected" me in any way, but rather have been corrected yourself. There is no getting around these simple and irrefutable points, even if you post another 4,200 or even 42,000 more words.
2. WP:BLP is serious policy, and it applies to all living people, including Ali, Bogdanor, and Bard. One can certainly challenge their validity as sources for Misplaced Pages articles, but that does not mean PalestineRemembered or you can simply insult them. Stop defending PalestineRemembered's abuse of the policy, and stop abusing it yourself in defense of him.

PalestineRemembered has now burned out how many of his mentors; three? four? This is not the fault of his mentors. Jayjg 01:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In general you’re right, the problem is not with the mentors per se. Rather there are a host of other problems, mostly arising from the fact that mentorship has put PR under a level of scrutiny other I/P editors are not subjected to – indeed, a level of scrutiny under which, frankly, they would not fare any better than he has. This peculiar situation has been abused in several ways, but most egregiously by other editors funneling disinformation to PR’s mentors.--G-Dett (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the egregious abuse here is on the part of PR's enablers, who, rather than firmly insisting he use reliable sources and make neutral edits, instead defend his every soapbox comment and indefensible action as part of some "disinformation" plot against him. Jayjg 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I may not be able to complete my participation here, if this drags on, because I have a computer with a cracked hard disk, and technicians are all on vacation. Every time I request a page, having jiggered my way into windows past numerous warning signs and software rejections, I must wait anything from minutes to an hour. This in case I fail to reply to further comments.

Jayjg . PR has been, in this case, 'burned', irrespective of whether mentors have been burned out or not (There is more than anecdotal evidence that some of her editors have been pestered by complaints aimed at unsettling the relationship). It appears she has been burnt rather maliciously. Ryan's frustration is the only evidence I respect, but I note that, apparently, prior to his making his complaint on ANI, you had plastered some protests about PR on his page. The only evidence for malefaction, infringement of wiki rules we have came from GHcool's exercise in fossicking in the archives for dead and buried (and sanctioned) behaviour, and what you then came in to supply. What you supplied has been systematically shown to be factitious.

(a) You now admit the sockpuppetry gambit reflects a misunderstanding on your part. Thus it must be discarded.

(b) You complained about infringements of WP:BLP re Mitchell Bard, Paul Bogdanor, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and PR's remark on Kastner's posthumous reputation.

(b.1) I showed that your complaint about Pr's dismissal of Paul Bogdanor and Mitchell Bard is improper. Neither is qualified to comment on I/P articles according to the restrictive reading you use, on occasion, of WP:RS. PR's dismissal of them as RS is perfectly consonant with your dismissal, elsewhere of Ian Lustick and David Shulman as reliable sources. Your approach to wiki rules is incoherent, not PR's. We are asked, optimally, to edit articles using sources of the highest quality, and avail ourselves of screeds written by partisan panjandrums (William Safire's words) from the lower gironi of the commentariat.

(b.2)Ayaan Hirsi Ali, you argue, was described by PR in a way that violates WP:BLP. You take exception to the fact that PR noted AHA admits to having lied about her past. In saying this on a talk page, she is violating, in your view WP:BLP, and thus must be sanctioned with a permanent community ban. This 'piece of evidence' is absurd to the point of outrageousness. This is what the wiki page on Ayaan Hirsi Ali notes:-

'Once in the Netherlands, she requested political asylum and received a residence permit. It is not known on what grounds she received political asylum, though she has admitted that she had lied by devising a false story about having to flee Mogadishu . .'

In other words, you, Jayjg, are requesting that PR receive a lifetime ban on wiki (I/P) articles for, among other things, having quoted in paraphrase on the Israel Shahak talk page, what the wiki page on Ayaan Hirsi Ali says. Your imputation to PR of a gross violation of WP:BLP consists, unbelievably, of evidence which shows PR simply paraphrased what a wiki page dedicated to that woman records. Bref. PR is to be eternally exiled because she cited a documented fact registered on a consensually edited wiki biographical page. What's your game here? What's all this about violations of WP:BLP from someone whose editing on the Israel Shahak page, a distinguished Jew, consistently supports the retention of frivolous gossip by many kibitzers without his talmudic learning and philosophical acumen, that trashes and slanders his memory. Oh yes, Shahak's dead, so anything can be said, and he was a secular critic of a certain politically-potent vein in messianic Judaism.

As to Kastner, it is, I repeat immaterial. The only difference here, is that you dislike PR (and my) views of Kastner. Twice you misread our remarks, and made a huge to-do out of this misprision. So be it. You seem to be endeavouring to get a person you dislike banned because of a reasonable judgement that person made on a talk page, one shared by many respectable scholars, about a controversial figure.

All I have seen in this long complaint against PR is barratry. Over the past two years, PR has had registered against him/her numerous complaints, some serious, several frivolous, and, on my side of the border is considered to be a 'scalp' the 'opposition' seems to regard as worth taking, not because PR's actual editing is deplored (what pages has PR's editing despoiled?). But because of his/her attitude. PR has suffered several suspensions (I four, for that matter, many arising, coolly viewed, from exasperation at poor (tagteam)editing and harassment). Outside editors and admins, reviewing the log at speed get a poor impression, and, now that we have a fresh complaint, scour the names of the plaintiffs (old hands) rapidly check the diffs, and miss virtually all of the subtextual and contextual play. If I had to sum up what has occurred in one word, it is barratry.

With Avi, and PR, I have discussed the larger problem in depth quietly on our respective pages, with none of the veiled politeness or wikilawyering that runs through this page. Though Avi will not agree with me that what we have here is barratry, since his eye is focused on what is, admittedly, PR's exasperation, and the influence of that exasperation on his/her functional productivity on I/P articles, and I agree with him that PR is exasperated (only I tend to sympathize with the reasons for that exasperation), we have asked PR to consider a rest period, to withdraw voluntarily for a few months. PR, (though Avi and I disagree on this) appears to be innocent of anything charged against him/her here, has agreed to this. I.e. though innocent of the charges made against him/her, PR has taken advice from two editors, one with high standing on both sides (Avi) and my own disreputable self. I think that acceptance of advice she has received from both sides, a painful thing to do under the circumstances, proof of PR's integrity and respect for the community, and that we should, at this point, simply lay off arguing with each other, and let PR, Avi, G-Dett, and administrators etc., mull either this, or as Avi has with exemplary generosity offered, vet the possibility of a fifth mentorship, where he has offered to assist. I personally think PR should lay off for 2 months, and then come back to ask, preferably Avi, and some other admin, to assist his/her editing, and to restrict the focus of editing to one or two pages at a time.

This is no longer a matter of 'evidence': it is a matter of finding a way to improve the conditions under which PR might return to editing I/P articles, with a more refined awareness of what Pr should learn to avoid in order that excuses for barratry or, alternatively, reasons for serious complaint as in the past, arise in the future.Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I must commend you, Nishidani, managing to produce yet another 1200 word tome, and with a cracked hard disk! In response:

1. Regarding the sockpuppeting, in my experience the only time people self-declare an account to be a SPA is when they have another account for editing in other areas. PR stated his account was an SPA, and I assumed that it was also an admission that PR was a second account, but he did not state his account was an second account. That is all we know. And there was no "gambit", nor any "barratry"; if you must write at such length, at least have the courtesy to avoid this kind of hyperbole.
2. You keep missing, or ignoring, the point about Ali, Bogdanor, and Bard. I'll repeat it; they are living people, and one therefore cannot insert unsourced or poorly sourced material about them anywhere on Misplaced Pages, including Talk: pages. That is the only relevant point here. And that applies to calling them "quarter-wits" too.
3. Since you keep bringing up Shahak, rather than comparing his article to Ali's, a more apt comparison would be of Shahak's writings on Judaism to Robert Spencer's on Islam.
4. You claim that "prior to making his complaint on ANI, had plastered some protests about PR on his page." I did indeed make one comment about PR on Ryan's Talk: page, in May, after PR was blocked for again adding material sourced to jewsagainstzionism.com, which PR still (after many, many months, and many explanations) insists is a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards - a personal website run by an anonymous religious extremist, whose only contact is a Post Office box. You do go on about reliable sources, but this absurdity somehow escapes your comment. Also notable is your rather obviously inaccurate description of my actions. If someone had so inaccurately described PR's actions as you described mine, you would no doubt be instantly writing 5,000 word essays in his defense; the contrast is startling.
5. I did not develop a lengthy case against PR, but merely made a brief comment pointing out some recent and troubling Talk page comments of his - comments which are still quite troubling, regardless of your lengthy, but unsuccessful, attempts to defend the indefensible. However, there are plenty more edits to choose from, if one were to want to; for example, his fairly recent edit-warring on behalf of an IP editor to insert this obvious hoax quote into the Menahem Begin article. A google search finds it mentioned only on these two websites: - if it were an actual quote, it would have been prominently displayed on hundreds, perhaps even some reliable ones. Not only did PR re-insert the "quote", but he then petitioned his mentor, Ryan, declaring its removal to be "vandalism" even though he stated the quote "may or may not be true", and asked to be released from his I-P editing restrictions so he could revert it in again. That is the kind of action that rapidly burns out a mentor.

Jayjg 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of evidence too long, but did read

Too long, but did read. The argument that PR has done nothing - at least nothing mentioned by his "opponents" - worthy of a ban is pretty persuasive. The problem is that everyone involved has a strong opinion, and it may be hard to avoid having one after reading enough to contribute to the topic area.

As he was mentioned above, I read about Rudolf Kastner. It's an interesting story, and I can honestly say that I cannot judge him, at least based on what's presented in the article. Whether it's wrong to sacrifice many to save some is a very complicated moral question. But I also found that the article concentrates too much on that moral question and other unanswerable questions and not enough on what he actually did (or what people say he did), and that hurts its quality. For instance, the "assassination" section contains this weaselly sentence: "But the idea that the killing was a government cover-up has been described as "absolute nonsense" because the head of the intelligence service was a close personal friend of Kastner."

What's really needed is a committee of people with no strong views but the desire and ability to learn more about the situation to get involved, and possibly arbitrarily make decisions to improve the quality of the articles. Unfortunately, we don't have something like that, and I really have no suggestions. --NE2 02:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

NE2's notion of a "committee of people with no strong views but the desire and ability to learn more about the situation" is a good idea on its face, but it won't work in this situation. There are literally two mutually exclusive bodies of "truth" regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, each with its own library of "reliable sources," etc. Any effort at getting to the bottom of things will inevitably convince the subscribers to one or the other perspective that the party making an objective assessment of the facts has become compromised, whether it has or hasn't. Tegwarrior (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered comments Thankyou for the careful attention you've paid to the evidence and details of this case, the project would benefit hugely if others were doing the same.

Regarding "a Committee", unfortunately, WP is currently structured on no interference with "content disputes". However, all is not lost, because each of the discussions above demonstrates that editors care passionately about "cheating" (even if there is wild disagreement over what it covers and the word itself is very much frowned upon). The project has proved that it can (sometimes) deal with at least one form of cheating, abusive sock-puppetry (unfortunately, its record is less than perfect even there).

My opinion is that the project needs to take cheating much more seriously - the problem is so serious that even declaring one's own integrity (as here) is the very must unpopular thing one can do. It leads straight to calls for total muzzling (as here) even from those who are not personally implicated in this lying and cheating and covering-up. Well, I say there is no element of cheating in that example - a call for the most severe sanctions possible on an editor clearly being witch-hunted would turn the stomach of at least some people. PR 08:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PR. We are not here to argue for our respective integrity, however embattled in talk skirmishes. We are here (I was here) specifically to improve articles. I/P articles are, notoriously, among the hardest to edit. Precisely for this reason, to edit fruitfully, one must simply decide, whatever the nonsense one may observe on the opposed side (from whichever perspective) to plug away stoically, master one's natural sensitivities, and look to the articles' wellbeing. I have done my best to show that, in this instance, there is no substance to the evidence supporting calls for a community ban. But I have not mentioned that I have considerable regard for Ryan, and for several other editors and admins in here who, though they straddle the frontier, do appear to feel that when someone has his or her fourth mentor throw in the towel with exasperation, that person should pause to reflect instead of sitting down to watch the outcome of a spectacle and feeling vindicated, and then rushing to evoke words like 'lying' 'cheating', 'cover-up' 'muzzling' etc. I think at this point that, while I, for one, regard you as wholly cleared (others will disagree) of the charge made, I think you have not reflected sufficiently on the aims of wikipedia, an encyclopedia which requires editors to sacrifice their time in order to write articles, and avoid like the plague abetting the inevitable poisoning of the well caused by insinuation.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Avraham's comments to PR As regards your characterizations of my initial comments as "total muzzling," please remain intellectually honest and take into account both my re-description of what i believe would be appropriate, as well as my in-depth discussion with Nishdani. What is both slightly humorous, as well as sad, is that for the past year, I may have been one of your most vocal defenders from the non-Palestinian camp. You are obviously intelligent and well-read; it makes it all the more so disappointing when you seem to "skirt" the line of civility, or in this case, almost, but not quite, misrepresent my current opinions on the matter through selective quotation. Perhaps you did not notice my changing my stance; understood. But when making "charged" statments, be it about users or about issues, the onus is on the statement maker to ensure that the statements remain accurate. The old saw of "extreme statements need extreme sources" applies everywhere, not just places like the JewsagainstZionism sourcing issues.

PR, you are usually not guilty of gross trolling or open name-calling. However, for better or for worse, you have exhibited an editing style and behavior that has rubbed many people the wrong way; has exhausted the patience or ability of a number of mentors, and has you in the community spotlight on a regular basis. As I have told you in the past, were you to channel your energy, efforts, and ability away from ideologically-charged editing and into more neutral editing, you would be a very valuable editor. But now, your efforts are wasted in the constant frictional battles that arise, and your editing style does not beget you many supporters outside of your ideological camp. I continue to maintain that a break from P/I articles for, let's say six months, wherein you focus your abilities elsewhere, and then a return to these articles, under guidance, where you can show how you work with all other editors to reach acceptable compromises and consensus, will stand ALL of us in good stead for the long term. Trying to apply your ability to craft intelligent phraseology to minimize ideologically charged issues as opposed to trying to find the most extreme cases to magnify the issues would be my suggestion. -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to opine on the specific situation, which people who have read all the evidence have done above. (Though as an uppity woman who sympathizes with uppity palestinians who also get spanked for being uppity, I may have my little prejudices.) Anyway, it just occurs to me from a comment about the intractable differences between the two sides that perhaps each disputed article (or section) should just have separate sections of approximately equal lengths/# of footnotes with whatever WP:RS info people wanted to enter and some third neutral parties would decide what is or isn't WP:RS. Just a crazy thought!! PS: If only administrators are supposed to post here, the top of page should make that clearer. Not sure now. Carol Moore 18:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, anyone may post here. The purpose is to have a centralized area to bring items to administrators, but anyone may do so, as well as comment on the proceedings. Personally, I disagree with your suggestion, as that starts us down the slippery slope of having ideologically-based articles and not neutral articles. We ares supposed to be en encyclopedia, not a debating forum. However necessary the latter may be, there is a place for it in life and on the internet; however,[REDACTED] is not supposed to be that place. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Avi (and others): Nixeagle suggests above an RfC about PR. Or, should another mentor step forward to replace Ryan? Or, if mentorship is dropped, how should the divisive situation be handled? Thanks. HG | Talk 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

An RFC would be asking for trouble/drama. And well you are not going to get another mentor. PR's opponents will simply see any mentor as a weapon to use against PR or if the mentor does not allow themselves to be used as such as an obsticle that has to be removed. Your best bet for keeping the situation quiet for a bit would be to topic ban all sides but you would need an arbcom ruleing for that.Geni 03:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My time is spread extremely thinly as it is, so I do not know how much it would help, but I will extend the same offer to you, PR, as I have with others, in that I would be willing to act as a co-mentor. What this entailed in the past was that communication was copied to both mentors simultaneously, with both mentors having the ability to act independantly, if necessary. Perhaps this would assuage some of your concerns, Geni, as I am naturally ideologically disposed in a manner different than PR, I am less likely to be "used as a weapon" by any opposition. A situation similar to the method Isarig's mentorship was handled may be appropriate. Two mentors (Fayssal and I), whose backgrounds were sufficiently different as to neutralize perceptions of impropriety, who had demonstrated the ability to work together in an atmosphere of respect, and who (hopefully) were viewed by the community as being able to act impartially notwithstanding background and upbringing, may allow all participants to come away as best as possible from the situation. The editor receiving the guidance could feel that s/he was not forcibly placed with someone with whom they did not feel understood them, and the other project members could not claim that the mentor would be too likely to overlook any issues due to too much similarity. Unfortunately, in Isarig's case, the mentorship was unsuccessful, and he has left the project. If there is someone else willing to take the primary role in attempting a fifth go-round with you, PR, who would be willing to work with me and work out some primary guidelines, perhaps that may be an all-round acceptable solution. If I personally am unacceptable to you, PR, perhaps another willing volunteer may be found. And if the joint mentorship is unsatisfactory to you, you are no worse off than you are now. -- Avi (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a pair comprising a relatively "centrist/moderate" involved admin and a completely uninvolved admin? An uninvolved mentor is likely to give more objective advice, but an involved admin will understand the context better. -- Mark Chovain 06:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That is also a fine idea, and I am actually involved in another mentorship now of that form as well (I'm the centrist in the pair, I guess). The idea is not to penalize, but to prevent further disruption to the project. -- Avi (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This AN/I case, the latest of a long series of cases against PR, is seemingly headed in the direction of no action, or possibly worse - relaxing PR’s editing restrictions from mandated mentorship, to a voluntary one, in which PR gets to pick his own comfy-cozy “mentor”.

I have already commented on the case, but I’d like to offer an additional insight, which may act as a red flag for those commentators who have recently been swayed to oppose any sort of sanction. Seemingly under the impression that Nishandi is already his mentor, PR indicates the direction of his future editing, in a request for comment on which parts of a source he has come across are appropriate for inclusion in the biography of Elie Weisel. The source in question is ‘Culture Wars”, a private, partisan magazine dedicated to the dissemination of a rather extreme brand of Catholic fundamentalism. It has been described by one of its ex-editors as a magazine that is ‘increasingly becoming a journal of psycho-sexual conspiracy theory.” It’s editor, one E. Michael Jones , has been described as someone who “runs through all the usual anti-Semitic canards -- the ideas that "Jewish media elites" run the country, that Jews are "major players" in pornography, and that Jews are behind Masonry and the French Revolution -- but that's only the start”. He is also a man who believes that “every Christian, insofar as he is a Christian, must be anti-Jewish.” The article in question, written by a rather obscure Professor of French Literature from Georgia State University, describes Weisel as ‘a con man’. The author makes an ideology of his refusal to use the word “Holocaust”, preferring, instead the euphemistic “Jewish Ordeal of World War II” (while at the same time having no compunction describing actions of the Jewish Irgun as “extermination of innocent Arabs”). Echoing the aforementioned anti-Semitic canard espoused by Jones, the author also complains that ‘Hardly a day goes by without the Judeo-corporate media producing an article, report, TV show or movie of some kind on the subject of the Holocaust and the dubious “lessons” we are supposed to draw from it”.

PR’s verdict on this source? Why, it’s “relatively calm and fact-orientated (and is apparently stacked with references).” Don’t say you weren’t warned when this pops up at the next AN/I. I give it about 2 weeks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, both author and editor of Culture Wars sound like charlatans.

Let’s briefly note what Canadian Monkey omitted from his summary:

1. PR’s “verdict” on the source in question begins with misgivings about how “these ethno-identifying tracts always make me uncomfortable,” and ends with his stated concern that the author might even be a Holocaust denier.
2. PR did not insert the source into the article in question or even on its talk page; rather, he tentatively asked his defender Nishidani what he thought about it on his own user talk page.

This was just hours ago. Sit tight for Nishidani to say – in his inimitably labyrinthine way – “No, PR, this nutjob doesn’t look like a good source. Whatever legitimate material may be in this article will surely be found in the work of serious and reputable critics of Weisel, such as Norman Finkelstein.” That, at any rate, will be the lightbulb at the center of whatever verbal chandelier Nishidani is currently building.

Dearest G-Dett, Wiesel-PR-Nishidani exactly, except I simply did not think it worth commenting on. For once I thought, silence would speak volumes. I think, generally, you've seized the bolt (as in stuffing) by the nuts(as per myself), and we get to the real gist of this AN/1, something I think all parties on all sides would underwrite. Were I ever to return to editing (improbable) could I be assigned you as my mentor? You may not have hands-on experience in decongesting wind-bags, but your paring abilities on the conceptual lathe surpass those of Robert Hughes, and would stand me in good stead were I to resume carpentering on the ramshackle Gormless Gormenghastly palaces of gestaltzheimer-afflicted memory out of which I jerryrig my contributions. Affectionately Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I like your verbal chandeleirs (all the more so after the nod to Frances Yates and Mervyn Peake) and wouldn't dream of dismantling them. Also, I do think if the PR-mentorship malarkey is to continue you'd be the man for the job.--G-Dett (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If my prediction holds, this will be evidence in support of “cozy-comfy” mentorship of the kind Nishidani could provide.

Would it be too much to ask of editors calling for PR’s banning that they be thorough, circumspect, and forthcoming about their evidence?

For my part, if I were to find Jayjg asking if some scurrilous nonsense he found on FrontPageMagazine would be appropriate for the article on Israel Shahak, and a fellow pro-Israel editor responded “No, Jay, it really wouldn’t” – I would do cartwheels of joy and award barnstars to both boys.

CM is right about one thing: this will almost certainly be dragged up in whatever stupid banning discussion is in store for us two weeks from now.--G-Dett (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, G-Dett has missed my point completely, and topped it off with some misrepresentations. PR did not end his post “with his stated concern that the author might even be a Holocaust denier.” – but rather with the claim that since he was concerned that the author is “one of the Holocaust Deniers we'll have rammed down our throats” (note the eloquent phrasing of the concern – not that the man might turn out to be a Holocaust denier, but that he might (“horror!”) be rammed down the throats of those who choose to quote him) - he’s checked, and concluded that he’s the "professor of French at Georgia State University in Atlanta" that the article says he is”. So much for PR’s famed research skills, which are constantly bandied about by his supporters. And so much for G-Dett’s shabby attempts at discrediting my evidence – which, of course, included a link to PR’s entire missive, so that people can judge for themselves about it’s nature.

But as I wrote above, this is missing the point. The point is not that this was posted at PR’s Talkpage rather than in Weisel's bio or that article’s Talk page. And indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if Nishandi did counsel PR that is not the “calm and fact-orientated” source he imagines it to be. The point is that after editing Misplaced Pages for nearly two years, after being mentored by no less than 4 different individuals, and after being repeatedly cautioned about BLP violations and the need for high quality sources, this highly intelligent editor who possesses great research skills apparently still can’t tell a virulent hate site from a scholarly source, can't differentiate between a BLP-violating screed and a “calm and fact-orientated” neutral presentation, or identify a “charlatan” as G-Dett mildly put it (other sources have described the same as a “hard-line anti-Semite”) from a respectable academic. Canadian Monkey (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

CM, the point as I see it is that PR clearly expressed his misgivings about the source, while wondering if there might be something factually salvageable from the article. You cropped out the misgivings, extracting his one positive phrase and presenting it as his "verdict," and neglected to mention that PR was asking for advice on a user page, not inserting or justifying on an actual article page. Yes, you provided a blue link. These frequently go unclicked, and in the case of charges against PR it appears to be a virtually universal wiki-custom to ignore the evidence and go with the allegation. See the very first post in this entire banning thread, by PR's current mentor, for a striking example of this.

I did not choose "charlatan" as a euphemism, but on the contrary precisely because of its resonance in a dispute about sources. The source in question indeed appears to be a "hard-line anti-Semite," but the trouble with that phrase is that for literate people it has lost much of its meaning after widespread application to Jimmy Carter, Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and others, by hacks, propagandists, and charlatans.

Once again, there are a great many regular editors of I-P pages, many of them in good standing and with admin privileges, who do not have a good sense of what makes a source reliable and encyclopedic. PR does not stand out in this regard. He does stand out in that he has a healthy sense of self-doubt, tends to ask for advice and to follow it, and does not resort to endless wikilawyering and dispute-resolution stall tactics when his bad ideas are cogently rejected.--G-Dett (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I do not intent do get into a blow-by-blow argument over this with you, as I believe the evidence speaks for itself. Anyone can read what PR actually wrote, using the link I gave, and see if he had “misgivings about the source” or if he pronounced it a “calm and fact-orientated” one, as I claim. I will correct one misrepresentation, though, because you have now repeated it twice: I made it clear that PR was asking a presumed mentor for advice on the suitability of this source. Reread what I wrote:” Seemingly under the impression that Nishandi is already his mentor, PR indicates the direction of his future editing, in a request for comment on which parts of a source he has come across are appropriate for inclusion in the biography of Elie Weisel”. I will assume that your repeated false claims that I “neglected to mention that PR was asking for advice on a user page” are based on careless reading - rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, but ask that you not repeat it again, and consider striking out these claims. The main point still stands: what you and I correctly identify as something coming from a "hard-line anti-Semite’ source, PR, master of research that he is, can’t see, despite having been repeatedly cautioned about his sources.

As an addendum, I think it is instructive to look at some further PR contributions related to this AN case. Recall that PR had been offered an olive branch of sorts by Avi, one of the most patient and accommodating admins who have commented here, including a suggestion that no further sanctions be imposed, and that PR get to choose his next mentor . PR responded very negatively to the suggestion, and treated Avi with incivility, as several editors noted and as even he concedes.

All of this is perfectly in-line with PR’s known editing style and is not surprising in the least. What is quite interesting is the rationale he has given for this behavior – which is, that he was under the (mistaken) impression that he had once been engaged in a content dispute with Avi - and that Avi had persuaded him to compromise. One really has to read this a couple of times to believe it: In a cooperative project such as Misplaced Pages, built on notions of consensus and compromise, the fact that he had been persuaded to compromise was in his mind legitimate grounds for bearing grudge against the editor with whom he had compromised, to the point of uncivil treatment a year later. Is this the kind of editor we want on the project? Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, FrontPageMagazine is not used as a source for the Israel Shahak article. By the way, could you please point out the last time I used FrontPageMagazine as a source? It's entirely possible I used it as a source in my early editing days, when sourcing standards were considerably more liberal than they are now (and I was far less experienced), but I can't recall using it in the past couple of years. Speaking of "scurrilous nonsense", what do you think of this insertion? And by the way, if you want to describe me as a "pro-policy" editor, feel free to do so, but don't use any other description, and don't describe me again as inserting "scurrilous nonsense" into articles, thanks. Jayjg 03:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic

Just noticed this (via Nishidani's comment). Please remove or strike out these comments, or allow me to. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG. I’d prefer you didn’t strike this out, since (per my comments below and above) I definitely see this as a conflict involving not only PR’s behavior but Jay’s. If you insist, however, I’d ask you to begin your deleting or striking from Jay’s question above – “By the way, could you please point out the last time I used FrontPageMagazine as a source?... I can't recall using it in the past couple of years" – forward. It would not be appropriate to leave in place that challenge, along with the implied challenge that I provide evidence that he's added "scurrilous nonsense" to articles, while deleting the post in which I satisfy both challenges.--G-Dett (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To refresh you memory, Jay: you have used FrontPageMagazine as a source also in the last two years: . Regards, Huldra (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

For further refreshment, here's where you add scurrilous nonsense from an interview in FrontPageMagazine about how Israel Shahak "was a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism." In the same edit, you add some other guilt-by-associations slurs ("David Duke mourned Shahak," etc.), sourced to the inestimable Paul Bogdanor. And here's where you describe all this scurrilous nonsense as "well and reliably enough sourced." Oh, and here's where you source material about Shahak's "fabricating incidents, "blaming the victim", distorting the normative meaning of Jewish texts, and misrepresenting Jewish belief and law" to an unpublished writer, who in between time spent on Usenet threads and writing entries for Urban Dictionary (look up "k0nsl") typed an online essay in the hopes of winning a $1000 reward offered for material discrediting Shahak. Don't know if he won the bounty, but he's still in the Shahak article, even though the link to his self-published essay is dead.--G-Dett (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

PR notes: I have another example of User:Jayjg repeatedly using FPM within the last 2 years. I have a big list of questions for him over his version of policy generally and wholesale reverts he's made of mine in particular. However, I also know that any word from me will be used as a platform to attack me in ludicrous and often completely false ways.

So I'll restrict myself to asking - how long before the project deals properly with articles concerning the I-P conflict? How long before internal critics of Israel such as Shahak are treated properly? Is there anyone who thinks I'm even a small part of this problem? How long can we ignore the real elephants in the room? PR 11:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to topic

For what it may be worth, the following may be relevant to this discussion:

• User talk:PalestineRemembered#Pure condescension from a pseud in Polonius's corner but
• User talk:PalestineRemembered#Re Avi
• User talk:Avraham#Thanks for the note
• User talk:Nishidani#Issues

-- Avi (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Two observations. (1) There is no consensus for the proposed topic ban on PR. (2) The current mentor has expressed a strong lack of confidence in PR, as have some other folks who are moderately uninvolved in I-P issues. Unlike the last AN/I, it looks like a new mentoring team has not jumped in to volunteer. Even if you disagree with these obsevations, we need to figure out a course of action. It's been suggested that we do an RFC/U or go to another ArbCom case. However, those would both be a drama and a drain. (As a fairly neutral player, I was thinking about proposing the RFC/U for the sake of moving the deliberations forward. But the recent Elonka RFC makes me wonder whether the RFC is such a helpful mechanism.)

Perhaps we can figure out a compromise proposal -- something acceptable to PR and his supporters, yet also meaningful to PR's critics. For instance, what if PR's editing was restricted, not banned? Here's a proposal but we could certainly entertain other versions until we find the right formulation.

Proposed: PR would be allowed to continue editing in I-P topic area, but PR would be restricted to 6 articles over the next 30 days. Each article would be subject to the discretionary sanctions for I-P articles, so PR would be subject to potentially rigorous admin oversight. Hopefully, 2 fairly uninvolved people (e.g., Avi) would volunteer as mentors. At the end 30 days, the mentors (at their sole discretion) could reduce or increase the number of articles by, say, 3. Repeat every 30 days for 180 days. By then, PR would be editing between zero and 21 articles.

Details: If need be, the mentors need not be the ones who decide about the number of articles. It could be done by a committee of 2-3 fairly uninvolved people. (Personally, I could volunteer for such a role.) Also, PR should get to choose the articles within his orbit, or nominate them pending approval by the mentors/committee. Also, if this arrangement needs to be justified under WP policy, it can be considered a discretionary sanction under the I-P ruling.

Thanks for hearing me out and assuming my good faith. Friendly amendments are welcome. HG | Talk 04:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Note of concern: Wouldn't this give justification both for "little angels" to harass PalestineRemembered on the limited articles he will choose to partake in and also for his supporters to exponentially enhance the drama in response? It's an interesting suggestion though and one that PalestineRemembered should seriously consider. Jaakobou 05:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Your are right, Jaakobou, there may be some unwanted side-effects of this arrangement. I'd be glad to hear input from you, or anybody, about how to help make such an arrangment work. Folks can tell me here, my Talk, or my email. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: Please excuse my ignorance, but can you explain in simple terms why you feel this is a suitable compromise, HG? Thanks. By the way, I do not have enough experience with PR to be a supporter or detractor, however, I am very concerned about any precedents this might set. We should all, not just PR, consider the possible ramifications of such a precedent, for all of us. What are the potentially productive and damaging future implications of such a move beyond the scope of this particular conflict? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd explain the 6 article limit as trying to find an elegant solution between a topic ban and yet another ad hoc mentorship effort. I think it's good for Misplaced Pages to try out such intermediate sanctions and, in any case, ArbCom seems to be authorizing us to use our discretion in dealing with I-P disputes. Also, PR's case is rather unusual so I don't see a precedent problem. Finally, for reasons I don't entirely understand, people on both "sides" seem to give me the benefit of the doubt and listen with an open mind to my ideas. I don't think either side prefers this arrangement but they may well be willing to settle for it. Thanks for your interest. HG | Talk 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I've thought it over a bit and should add that it is highly concerning to see that the charges against PR have been largely ruled inadequate, and in the meantime other editors with worse track-records are somehow escaping this kind of censure. This editor, regardkess ofhis/her abrasive politics, should probably just be given the opportunity to let us know that s/he will voluntarily take a few months' break, as a show of good faith. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, per my observation above, I think there are unresolved concerns with PR's conduct (e.g., Nishidani 22:50, 8 Aug below) but it would be draining to try for consensus on the evidence, via RFC or ArbCom. PR is under a mentorship sanction, even absent new concerns. I don't see my role as assessing the evidence, I just need to get a feel for how various parties assess it. Perhaps I can leave it at that (or msg my Talk) and ask again for input on the proposed arrangement. Thanks LamaLoLeshLa. Cheers, HG | Talk 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to Jaakobou and LamaLoLeshLa's q's/comments later today. Meanwhile, thanks to you both. I look forward to hearing additional comments. Take care, HG | Talk 15:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe what you need is a heavily pro-Palestinian mentor who might have more credibility with PR when s/he spanks PR for any naughtiness? (Apologies if I missed this suggestion previously, in which case I support it.) Carol Moore 17:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

That is part of the basis behind the dual mentorship proposal given above, and discussed here: User talk:PalestineRemembered#Pure condescension from a pseud in Polonius's corner but, User talk:PalestineRemembered#Re Avi, User talk:Avraham#Thanks for the note, and User talk:Nishidani#Issues. -- Avi (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I specifically recommend reading Nishidani's comments in User talk:PalestineRemembered#Re Avi and how it may explain the failures of the past mentorships. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Offer starts:

I've noticed that Nishidani has withdrawn his offer and the thread could use a little bit of guidance due to it's sheer volume. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett has got me by the nuts. As I said, I definitely do not want to work on wiki articles under present conditions, since it appears impossible, except with extraordinary amounts of patience, to get consistent NPOV quality on board. There is simply a lack of trust. I would remonstrate with my Jewish colleagues that the quality of intelligence, insight, critical awareness and empathy that is the hallmark of the great generations who came out from the shtetl into the haskalah, and made, by their dual vision as completely naturalized others within the Western world, a germinal and massive contribution to Western identity we can all be proud of, is rarely evinced here. The expected quality, which you'll find alive in any number of casual conversations in bars, cafés, and soirées in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, is not quite here.

I'm a couple of generations older, I intuit, than many here. I further told PR that a strain of masochism fuels most heroism and virtue, and by that meant to nudge PR into self-reflection on the wellsprings of grievance (I grieve, when not sober, over history: I don't make an avocation of choosing one particular group out of several hundred that has suffered persecution, extermination, massacres, gulags, gas-chambers, and the like, and then getting worked up while working over that specific ethnic tragedy on wiki pages). To take on that task is masochistic. If PR wants something like this, then (s)he will have to pay me a high price (and since, as said, I lack all qualifications and the appropriate gifts for mentoring in wiki, it would require official assent), and thus I impose three conditions.

(1) PR volunteer to take an I/P Wikibreak until at least October. (I won't have a decent computer till then, in any case, and have American guests over through September).

(2) In that period, whatever else PR does, that the following books be (re?)read, slowly, and their contents be mastered:

(i)Adelbert von Chamisso, Peter Schlemiel.

(ii)Norman Cohn The Pursuit of the Millenium (2) Europe’s Inner Demons.

(iii)Pierre Vidal-Naquet,The Assassins of Memory and Other Essays

(iv)Raul Hilberg,The Destruction of the European Jews (Yale UP ed.2003)

(v)Raul Hilberg, The politics of Memory: The journey of a Holocaust historian

(vi)Raul Hilberg, Perpetrators, Victims, Bystanders: The Jewish Catastrophe, 1933-1945

(vii)Maxime Rodinson, Israel and the Arabs

(viii) Maxime Rodinson, Cult, Ghetto, and State: The Persistence of the Jewish Question

(ix) Primo Levi,If this is a man

(x) Primo Levi, The Truce

(xi)Primo Levi, The Drowned and the Saved.

(xii)Henryk Broder ,'Tagar and the Teepee Family', in his A Jew in the New Germany 2003 pp.124-129.

Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process. Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations, (1994 revised ed.)

Jean-Paul Sartre, Reflections on the Jewish Question,

I would have Baldassare Castiglione's The Courtier on the list, but perhaps that is overegging the pud. What is there is in Elias, and the point is about the history of good manners.

(3) That provisorally, PR make an act of faith and trust, and accept Avi's offer as co-mentor.

I would not be ready until October (and will not return to editing wiki). So if PR wishes to experiment in the meantime with Avi, and Avi has not revoked his offer, then obviously they might work out interim arrangements. Mentoring is a thankless task, PR, and I would advise that you take into consideration HG's suggestion to work restrictively on just one or two pages at a time, on a subject you have some detailed knowledge of. And, that you learn to pinpoint tersely the problem, or edit you are minded to discuss, to your mentor(s). Of course a short question on each book, to check that it is understood why I asked you to read it, would be necessary.

This is a steep price, but I'm not willing to come down on these preconditions. Take it or leave it. Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see that you're willing to mentor PR under particular conditions and, in any case, you say: "I would advise that you take into consideration HG's suggestion to work restrictively on just one or two pages at a time, on a subject you have some detailed knowledge of." Thanks for your comment. Take care, HG | Talk 20:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Offer suspended, pending clarification.

PR. Don't answer, since I withdraw suspend my offer. Jayjg has posted higher up a diff you made on the Menachem Begin page. You have apparently made an edit as shockingly poor as the numerous edits he has made on the Israel Shahak page. You'd better explain that edit, it is the only thing so far cited that bears study as evidence for erratic judgement. Don't blame, for this, Jayjg or anyone else. My computer is wobbly, twice on the blink within the last hour. If you explain it, please shut up about everyone else, I/P articles, the nature of the world, etc., and stick strictly and succinctly to the circumstances behind your plunking that outrageous piece of rubbish, which is as bad as anything Bogdanor and co., trawled up from the swamp against Shahak. I haven't checked, since this is a race against time with my hard disk. All I noted was JohnZ's remark below, on the talk page. JohnZ almost never gets things wrong, if ever.Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani is quite right that this is one of PR’s most troubling edits, involving a hoax quote from Menachem Begin. I would however remind everyone that this is an unusual situation, in that the hoax quote was published as fact by a reliable source (New Statesman), and still appears in other reliable sources from time to time (see here for example) while its debunking has appeared only (as far as I know) in a third-rate source (CAMERA). It is clearly a hoax quote regardless. I would compare this to the hoax Hezbollah quote ("if Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide"), which likewise appeared first in an RS newspaper (the Beirut Daily Star, whose editor subsequently expressed doubts both about the quote and the integrity of the reporter) and is repeated from time to time – and is debunked, however definitively, only in the letters section of the London Review of Books. I think these represent difficult test cases for the principle of “verifiability, not truth,” rather than compelling pretexts to ban an editor who wanders into them unawares.

I would also remind editors that PR’s edit was reverted with no edit-warring from him, minimal talk-page back and forth, and no peep or protest from his "supporters" – lending credence to my position that focusing on content, not the editor would be a painless way of dealing with PR’s sporadic bad edits.--G-Dett (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh Please Oppose community ban, the ArbCom case was closed with no action for god sake! Oppose block This seems to me like a cool down type of block. Support Topic ban, seems appropriate. Mww113 (Talk) (Review me!) (Sign!) 12:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My counterproposal is this: that PR not be mentored at all, that he be free to edit like anyone else. The main reason for this is simple: there is no evidence that his work has caused any real disruption, except when his detractors initiate these banning/mentorship threads. This is not to say that he hasn’t soap-boxed, made some low-quality edits, and voiced some peculiar assessments of sources on talk pages. No, it is only to say that these things have not resulted in any significant disruption to the pages themselves. Mark Chovain, in his otherwise superb comments here, errs when he says “a number of PR's supporters will claim that PR has never done a single thing wrong." In fact, PR has no unqualified supporters; he has no one who will blindly jump in behind him and pull the lever in a revert war, or bring the page to an impasse through wikilawyering. He has a few editors who object to continued harassment of him, but this is not the same thing, not by a long shot. In every case I've seen where he's made a poor edit, the matter has been quickly resolved, often with an admonition to PR from a "friendly," like Nishidani. Disruption, drama, and draining of community resources ensue only when editors ideologically opposed to PR seize upon a mistake or alleged mistake and try to get him banned – instead of simply fixing it.

Furthermore, mentorship in this case legitimizes a level of scrutiny directed at PR that would never be tolerated if directed at other I/P editors, and that vanishingly few of them would fare well under. Ending PR's formal mentorship would reverse this state of affairs, in which he is scrutinized in a vacuum, as it were, in which the actions of his accusers cannot be commented upon, in which discuss content, not other editors protects everybody except him. Editors would simply go back to dealing with his content – accepting it, modifying it, reverting it, in the usual wiki way – an approach to his contributions which the record will show has been fairly painless when practiced.

To those arguing for continued formal mentorship of PR, I ask you to explain to me how focusing on this editor will produce more efficient, satisfactory and disruption-free results than simply focusing on content per Wiki custom.

The second best course of action – if, that is, the emphasis is to be on editor behavior – would be an RfC or Arbcom case with a wide scope to cover both PR’s actions and Jayjg’s, and resume the Arbcom case where it was abandoned. This controversy is largely the fruit of a partisan dispute between the two of them, writ large across countless AN/I etc. boards. It appears to be about PR only for the simple reason that while anything, anything at all said about PR is permissible, any discussion of Jay’s role is by definition “off-topic” or a “personal attack.”

When PR and Jay’s Arbcom case was dropped, User:Nadav1 protested in the following terms:

If this case doesn't go forward, then I'm sure soon enough there'll be more "PR at it yet again" threads on the noticeboard, or else this'll end up here at arbcom again in some other form. It is strange to me that he's been blocked so many times before, and when I looked at the supposed justifying diffs, they didn't really justify his harsh treatment. All the hazy allegations in the air should be either conclusively proven or summarily withdrawn. Otherwise, they will continue to color people's perceptions of him, will affect his ability to freely edit, and will probably be used as vague justification for yet another block. nadav (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That was one hell of a prescient remark. Which brings me to the third best option: simply to ban PR and have done with it. This would be an unjust conclusion to an extraordinary saga of harassment, but frankly I think any mentorship arrangement, no matter how judiciously arranged and talented the mentors, will be a standing invitation to further harassment and a total waste of community resources. The community would survive his banning, and if it set the precedent for directly confronting and cutting off demonstrably abusive editors of all ideological persuasions, including those with long records here and apparent fluency regarding policy, that could be a silver lining.

At any rate I think the worst option here, by far, is further mentorship.--G-Dett (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand

Support topic ban - I'm not perfect and certainly there's more than a few editors who could work a little better in the sensitive topic of I-P articles. However, I'm not sure its possible to interact with PR without having unpleasantries. Even such neutral people as Avi have met with his wrath. Not only them, but notable pro-Palestinian editors such as Eleland and Nishidani were taken back with several of his fringe interpretation of sources and issues as well (my good friend G-Dett made note of this as well). I'm only going in line with what all the admins who left their voices here noted and support a topic ban. Another thing which concerns me, is an editor who was just blocked for bad judgement regarding sources who does the following edits -- , , -- during a discussion about him getting topic banned. PalestineRemembered may have enthusiastic advocates, but PalestineRemembered needs to answer both these concerns and the one made note of by Avi/Nishidani. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Response by PalestineRemembered to Jayjg and Kyaa the catlord raised points

PalestineRemembered, Please add your response to the raised issues here. Thank you. Jaakobou 16:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Inserting PalestineRemembered's reply from his talk page (Diff):

I just answered one of your questions here - as I said, I'm here to write good-quality articles in regular English, citing high-class RS references in the English Language. If I were extremely bold, I'd ask what you were doing here.

But since I cooperated then, perhaps it's time you answered the question I posed you there, or one of a whole slew of other questions eg another editor needs your answer to this: ... Are you saying that the civilians who were killed were not really civilians because they were used as human shields by Palestinians (a claim you have yet to offer a citation for)? Or, even, are you suggesting that the quote civilians were actually voluntary human shields?

How about confirming that you wrote this and are not being meat-puppeted? Your fan club was delighted (and astonished) to see these golden words appear from your fingers: "Wouldn't this give justification both for " little angels" to harass PalestineRemembered on the limited articles he will choose to partake in and also for his supporters to exponentially enhance the drama in response? It's an interesting suggestion though and one that PalestineRemembered should seriously consider.".

And I suppose it's too late to request you deny being the sock-master of User:MouseWarrior and User:Paul_T._Evans, two users who appeared on the very same day and immediately started edit-warring on the same articles as you yourself were engaged in. PR 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Response by other editors

Comment Kyaa the Catlord. You’re scraping the barrel. I’ll clean up after you.

(1) Avi reverts PR on Kaplan

Avi rightly reverted PR on Kaplan. Much in the past has been made of PR’s use of Kaplan. No historian of the period would find Kaplan’s remark exceptional. He represented an opinion in ultra-orthodox Jewish thought, highly hostile to Zionism’s secularism, that was commonplace, not fringe, in Europe and Palestine, before the 1930s. It’s simply that what historians might cite with equanimity often cannot be cited by wiki editors, unless the source is itself grounded in a reliable historian’s book or article. PR should have understood this distinction. It's often ignored by many editors who are never denounced, but simply reverted, or challenged through the normal talk pages.

(2) Eleland chides PR

That Eleland, myself, on PR's side of the wall, have reverted and argued with PR on a number of edits, and used strong language, is not evidence for our ‘wrath’ and PR's irresponsibility. It is evidence for the existence of strong editing responsibility on our side of the wall. Jayjg says we are ‘enablers’ of PR’s edit-warring style. We don’t sit around to seize on 1 edit in a hundred to drag PR before arbitration with malicious joy. Often when PR has asked our various opinions, we have given indications, offered advice, or reverted PR, or as here with Eleland and, in my case, (not only here) with the Menachem Begin, violated WP:CIVIL against one on ‘our’ side.. As G-Dett might justly say, 'with friends like Nishidani, who needs enemas.

(3)PR clarifies Finkelstein's second edition, PR provides a google search result on Brenner as cited in the literature, PR adds a note and link to another wiki page on a myth surrounding Saddam Hussein.

What have the final 3 diffs to do with the price of fish? There is absolutely no trace of anything problematical there. And, to adduce such quibbles is to, once again, further document suspicions or reinforce impressions that this case is a matter of barratry.Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nishidani,

I don't think that three bad edits from the past 10 days are "scraping the barrel". Repeated promotion of JewsAgainstZionism.com -- aka Kaplan -- and Battle of Jenin -- see also Hated Google Test -- massacre claims, and the other three edits are indeed a sign of concern and PR should give a proper explanation to why he's still, after 5 designated mentors, not adhering to WP:RS. I personally had an unpleasant account with him just before this thread was opened but I figured PR would explain himself, perhaps express remorse. Instead I see a note about "elephants in the room" and a link to his "devastating" (read: bogus) testimony from January, accusing me of sock-puppetry.

With all due respect, Jaakobou 16:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC) diffs 16:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

They aren't 'bad edits', Jaakobou, they may be neither here nor there, or indifferent, or not particularly improving. look at the Lehi page and see what nonsense I had to put up, regarding bad edits, in sequence, (so bad at the time I decided to leave off editing wiki articles) or any other number of consistent bad edits made. There are quite a few people who simply should not be editing I/P articles who have nonetheless never yet seen anything like the intensity of concentrated scrutiny PR has received. Jayjg doesn't adhere, as I see it, to WP:RS (no HG this is not off-topic) on several pages known to me. PR accused you of sockpuppetry. Jayjg accuses PR of sockpuppetry. We must learn to lay off from these endless wild accusations or pettifogging wars, and think a little more creatively. Ask an Israeli or Palestinian academic to write any of these articles to NPOV standards, and you would probably get a quality article within a week, requiring just a few annotations from the other colleague (this actually is what occurs on Enc.Britannica). Large numbers of people have been editing with good will or warring here for several years, and the result is a semblance of articles that break up into patches of POVs tessellated by compromise, that might at best be evidence for the decline of modern education. Over this last week while defending PR, I haven't quite been able to get Billy Budd off my mind. I hope you're familiar with it.

One can spend one’s youth frigging around securing salients for pro tem advantage. It is a pity so much intelligence is wasted because of an inability to step back collectively, review the larger problems, try to work out practical rules. Shot down PR or any number of bad editors active on the other side: the problem will persist, since it is structural. PR is right to note this, but I dislike the whingeing tone nonetheless. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ban, support 5 day special block for everyone who commented here 6 days ago, this topic was discussed. It is not near resolution. Therefore, the ban fails. End of story. I suggested 6 days ago that everyone, every administrator, every editor who commented observe an unofficial 5 day ban of themselves until 8 August (and violators would be subject to a 5 day block). This would allow for clearer thinking. Nobody, except me, observed it. The result is that there is still heated arguments. My proposal was for an unofficial ban (so the usual block rules don't apply) for everyone, not just PR. I believe that if my suggestion were followed, the people who observed the proposal would be able to come to an agreement on what to do. Spevw (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to try to decide this issue This issue should go to ArbCom as a formal case, sent to mediation with respect to specific articles, or be dropped. ArbCom has better organized procedures for hard cases like this. This needs the formal complaint/evidence/workshop/decision process to sort out all the claims and accusations. There's no consensus here, so it's inappropriate to take action via ANI. --John Nagle (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Proceeding to ArbCom or mediation. Well, I find such proceedings unpleasant, but perhaps it would be an appropriate way to deal with the contentiousness over PR and the breakdown of the mentorship arrangement. Would it be helpful for a fairly uninvolved party, such as myself, to prepare a motion for the case? Or should that be left up to the critics of PR's conduct? HG | Talk 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

For a neutral party to propose mediation might help. There's a path from mediation to ArbCom if that doesn't work. ArbCom is supposed to be a last resort. If mediation has been tried previously, it's probably time to go to ArbCom. --John Nagle (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

HG Just for clarification, does this require a vote, i.e., that a neutral person draw up an ArbCom case? Or is it something anyone can decide to proceed with off their own bat? Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. As my recommended reading list suggested, anyone editing here would do well to study the style and temper of several of the finest Jewish scholars and writers who deal with an event as unnervingly indigestible as the Holocaust. Unlike Elie Wiesel, Primo Levi, who had the same experiences, wrote with an intensely controlled sobriety about hell, and its victims, of which he was one. His allusive template was Dante, not a Yiddish Kant he had never read. Hilberg likewise sscrutinizes with olympian self-restraint and clinical detachment the minutiae of a vast system of concentrated extermination which appalled him. Vidal-Naquet has written trenchantly on Holocaust deniers, and yet he could write icily of those who exploited it, especially to defend Israel's actions in Palestine. He once noted that Palestinians often liken (improperly) their decades-long travails to the shoah, recognizing the Holocaust (while elsewhere often doubting it) as a parable for their own fate. Those who sympathize with the victims of that historic disaster which is Palestine, would do well to look at, and absorb lessons from Hilberg, Levi and Vidal-Naquet. They never allowed grievance, resentment or outrage to shadow the precision of their commentary on their own, or to gag them when conscience compelled them to pass in critical review the injustices Israel has systermatically meted out to Palestinians. Unless one wants, as G-Dett and John Nagel suggest, to replay this, in much larger perspective over at ArbCom, perhaps the creative solution at this point would be to sugest to PR, when in doubt, to ask any one in a pool of a dozen pro-Palestinian colleagues to review an edit PR mulls proposing. Mostly, we have here attitudes, grievance and animosity on both sides, and the fatigue of a mentor. So, I suggest those ‘pro-Israeli editors’ who so consistently haul PR over the coals in arbitration, and whose evidence has often resulted, for its brittleness, in a null decision, declare a tahadiyeh, and leave PR the chance of an informal mentoring among a dozen individuals on his/her side still active in I/P editing. Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (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 discussion.

Abusive User: Noclador, his impunity and the unacknowledgement of his actions

I have waited this long to raise this here because I was allowing the due process of the wrongful sockpuppetry accusations and WQA concerning myself to transpire. I have been left disappointed at the end of it (conclusion here) .

Noclador conducted a sockpuppetry investigation on behalf of Wikepidia and I was one of the accused. During the process I was subject to a myriad of personal attacks, flippant comments and manipulative character assassinations. This included the completely misrepresentative action of pulling together portions of statements from disparite locations to say something completely different to anything I was actually saying (or the context I was presenting). There selective use of “false/manipulated evidence” to incriminate me from a page that also had information that would contribute to prove my innocence. I have presened all the details at this link. This includes a summary of all the abuses and further links to all relevant pages.

Moreover I was initially not directed to the correct evidence pages nor was I notified of a later, related, ANI compliant. It was categorically shown that I was not a sock (at link & link), yet there was no apology, nor any acknowledgment for the mistake.

It now cannot be disputed that his evidence presented against me was poorly researched. It can also be speculated that there existed some kind of personal vendetta on the part of Noclador. At the evidence link I have detailed how several of my contributions were deleted by Noclador (some under the pretext of claimed vandalism), only to be undone by others. Even over the last few days he has deleted my cited contributions (from a couple of months ago) along with another editor’s recent addition (compare this and this [this; I have interjected with thisand this ) and claimed it to be non-consensus!! The aim appears to be to target the other editor’s content, but in light of Noclador’s behaviour towards me I see this as a convenient attempt to remove some of my citations. After all, he omits me (the main driver of the subsection, modified from an earlier attempt to include verifiable information) when he lists other editors as having made the consensus contributions.

Furthermore, others involved in the investigation were prepared to overlook the abuses by Noclador and impinge me for making personal attacks (plural). This is a baseless claim because the only thing I said was that Noclador was lying and manipulative (which can be (and has been - at the evidence link) demonstrated to be an understatement). I certainly do not claim perfection on my part, however, this is, quite frankly, a glaring double standard.

I asked for several things during the WQA discussion and as a sign of good faith modified the statement on my talk page to not include mention of the abuses that were carried out by my “accuser”. I received nothing. (See the two links, as mentioned above: here and here) So I see this as another one sided outcome. But I appreciate and respect the efforts of those who tried to mitigated the situation - they have been forthright.

Given that Noclador has been able to flout Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines with respect to his conduct, and has received no warning or sanction, then there is no reason for anyone else not to be allowed to do the same. After all, why should some of us have to follow the rules and live up to the Misplaced Pages ethos when others do not?

Romaioi (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please summarize. Very few people are going to read walls of text like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary: User:Noclador accused user User:Romaioi of being a sock-puppet, in the course of which User:Noclador behaved uncivily towards User:Romaioi. When the sock-puppetry allegations turned out to be untrue, User:Romaioi asked for an apology and User:Noclador refused, when the whole thing could have been stopped in its tracks by a simple apology. The issue went to WP:WQA where it was not resolved. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ed Fitzgerald comment is only a synopsis of Romaiois accusations and omits facts and lots of details. Fact is: During June a series of new users began to edit WWII topics with with a POV to proof that Italian forces were good fighters in WWII. As the editors in question were obviously part of a sock circus I started a report about them at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd. I added Romaioi on June 25 at 2:22pm because "just 100 edits but these are only in Italian WWII military topics (and at that: the usual ones: Tobruk, El Alamein,...) also he copies text that Generalmesse wrote directly into other articles" and informed Romaioi 4 minutes later about it: "You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page." When he went online 4 days later he could not find the link to the socketpuppetry case as in the meantime the page name had been moved and a checkuser had been requested on the socks - as soon as he informed me about that I left him a note explaining were he can find the case thus defend himself and what the purpose of a checkuser is .
• Romaioi began to defend himself ignoring all Wikiquette rules: "I will be expecting an unreserved apology from you." "Do your homework." "Use some of that good faith that you mentioned."; "Your moral and intuitive compass is upside down." ; "I will be contacting my Lawyer tomorrow concerning this matter. This is not a joke and its becoming very personal. Being that it should be a professional environment, there are liability issues involved." "So let me ask. Does noclador have some other agenda? I would like to know what it is."; "How is the witch hunt going?"; and that was just the first day! I therefore decided to not discuss with Romaioi, but to find more of the socks and more proof linking them together.
• The next day Romaioi started were he had left off the night before: "noclador has lied in his very first accusation." "I only found the correct link: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd by chance. Given the narrow and manipulative nature of by noclador’s evidence against me included on the latter page over the past day (discussed below), I would like to question if this was deliberate to mis-direct me to a page that I could not edit and not allow me to see (nor reply to) the case being presented against me." (by chance???) "noclador has persisted with his twisting arguments." (I did not respond to him to wait for the checkuser outcome... I did not persist, just did not answer) "noclador attempting to tar and feather me" "It all sounds frivilous to me." ""; at this point the checkuser results came back an showed that of 13 suspected socks 10 were confirmed socks, 2 users to old to check and Romaioi was proven to be unrelated.. A attempt by user:Justin A Kuntz to explain him the ceckuser process and had no effect.
• Romaioi continued to insult: "that he was happy to lie just to see me implicated."; and even to come to my talkpage to insult me ""; as I had and have no interest to discuss with someone as him and I do not like to be bullied on my talkpage I removed his comment, which let him to reinsert it and hurl more insults at me: "stop being petty" "as you clearly have no idea" "as I do not think much of you in light of your inability to acknowledge your own mistake(s)" - at this point I had enough and filed a report about his myriads of insults at WP:AN/I but also decided to move on to more important work.
• Today Ed Fitzgerald informed me that there is a WP:AN/I against me... Well, as it turns out Romaioi spent the last month continuing to smear me - and now he filed a complaint against me??? "Abusive User: Noclador, his impunity and the unacknowledgement of his actions" Abusive??? I went now to check his edits over the last month to get an idea, what he is talking about and found out, that he spent the last month dragging this story on and on: on User:EdJohnstons talkpage ; on his own talkpage with insults and presumptions: "evidence presented against User: Romaioi was manipulative and misrepresentative." "On 2 July 2008, it was categorically shown that User: Romaioi was not a sock puppet." (categorically was not even used once on the ceckuser page!) "anyone in future to be more thorough in their examination of the evidence before stepping over that line." "No acknowledgement of his error or apology (for either the mistakes or the personal attacks) has been made by User: noclador." "The extreme prejudice by User: noclador against User: Romaioi has continued after the sock puppetry case." "and typically making false accusations of Misplaced Pages:Vandalism as justification for removal." "Whilst the overall cause for which User: noclador was working for was good, his treatment of an innocent contributor has been reprehensible and devoid of good faith." "The message is to remain here as a permanent reminder of the and example of abuse of authority that remains largely unacknowledged.".
• and that was just on July 4th and on July 11th he continued with a brazen lie: Answering Justin talk, who pointed out that I did inform Romaioi at the very start that a checkuser is noting personal Romaioi answers: "noclador indicated nothing of the sort to me."
• On July 15th Jaysweet tried to explain Romaioi the checkuser process once more and suggested he move on, but on July 16th Romaioi goes on... "I can only speculate that he may have preconceived ideas concerning my character." "that there is a slight double standard in my being sanctioned when it seems plainly obvious that the injustice was done to me in several regards yet, the purveyor of it has received no sanction."
• and on July 19th, same story continues "No one has ever been able to say that I did anything more that claim that Noclador was lying and did not have a clue (and then summarize events and point out that I receieved no apology)." He wants an apology for him insulting me or what??? and he insinuates that I would be ready to harm his family "Further, to give you some background, where I live there have been incidences of people/families being been tracked down to their homes from IP addresses and being physically attacked, all over online disagreements. I know of 2 such cases. So given the disingenuous nature of the evidence being accrued against me and the talk of IP’s etc I had genuine concern that an attack on my family was becoming a real possibility." WTF??? This is the worst insinuation he threw around! This is unacceptable!!! Is he thinking I will take a plane from Europe to Australia to go an club his child??? God, I haven't even thought about him for 3 weeks at this point!
• and he goes on: claiming first "I am not trying to escalate the situation." and then smears me more "Removal of this would benefit noclador more than me because there would be no record of his behaviour." "I would like a statement inserted there by an administrator stating that Noclador’s statements are misleading and inappropriate. The statement should also declare that Nocaldor’s assertions should be ignored." and he "I would also like to see it stressed ( at link), that accusers are to be polite, courteous, respectful (whatever you want to call it), are prohibited from manipulating and misrepresenting evidence, and must not make personal attacks. There should be repercussions for uncivil behaviour." So, being polite and explaining to him everything was not good enough??? Has he looked at all his insults? "uncivil behaviour" does he have some diff-links to this behaviour he complains about???
• But he is not yet finished! There is more "If he has behaved in this manner once, he can do it again. Noclador should be observed. Based on assessment of the circumstances, I do not believe this incident to be isolated. I may be the first person making the point as far as he is concerned." "Finally, I would like a statement inserted by someone with administrative authority here indicating that I am not guilty of incivility, but rather was more the victim of it." "And lets not forget how its started: from a wrongful accusation and bad manners directed at me." I am speechless at the level of insinuation, twisting of facts, lying and smearing Romaioi has had the impudence to do behind my back!
• and on July 21st yet another lie: "The fact that I was being incorrectly associated with fascists by my accuser, both on the evidence page and on my talk page, compounded my concerns of the possibility of an attack." I did not link him to fascists - my statements read: "Your interest in topics regarding Italy and its military in WWII and Istrian exodus - both areas were User:Brunodam and the above socks have for a long time tried to manipulate the content (towards fascist glorification and revisionism)" and "It was written by the aforementioned socks with the stated intent to glorify the Italian Army in WWII. It's not neutral and it uses various fascist claims/statement as sources and that is unacceptable for an encyclopaedia." I spoke about the socks not him!!!
• and on August 5th, he still doesn't want to move on and brings his continuing insulting behaviour to new lows: "Noclador has been able to move past it because no one has taken him to task on his abuses. He has been able to abuse his power and not be held accountable whatsoever. In fact, he was gven a pat on the back." (What pat on the back??) "Instead the victim of Noclador's abuses and insults has been taken to task for highlighting the abuse and was perversely accused of abuses he did not commit (the claim that I made personal abuses (plural) is rubbish)." (is the above all rubbish???) "You have an unethical abuser, in noclador, who now has carte blanche approval to do what he wants to whoever he wants." An "unethical abuser"??? Sorry, but once more: WTF!? This is the worst collection of insults I have seen on[REDACTED] in over 2 years and I had the "joy" of having to deal with über-vandals like Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Roitr more than once!
• The recent events: On August 3rd User:ITALONY and on August 5th User:Bendiksen63 surfaced and it became quickly clear that both were new incarnations of the sock circus. After I talked with User:Kirrages and User:Narson we reached a consensus to mass revert/take the edits by socks down! (to which a IP immediately hurled a plethora of insults against me and Romaioi returned to continue his smear campaign with insults: "Your abusive friend Noclador tried his darndest to prove that I was one of GeneralMesse's sockpuppets and hurled a lot of insults my way. You must have sparked something in him.", lies: "In deleting your inclusions Noclador has vandalised some existing "concensus" information." (the consensus was to remove the addition by the socks!) insults: "Another example of him not doing his homework properly." & "I will undo Noclador's vandalism"... but he was not content with that and in a second instant went on to increase the level of his insults
• and then he filed this WP:AN/I report - in his usual style: "During the process I was subject to a myriad of personal attacks, flippant comments and manipulative character assassinations." "It can also be speculated that there existed some kind of personal vendetta on the part of Noclador." "I have detailed how several of my contributions were deleted by Noclador (some under the pretext of claimed vandalism), only to be undone by others." (the insults on my talkpage I did revert! What else? Maybe he as a diff link to prove this???) "Even over the last few days he has deleted my cited contributions (from a couple of months ago) along with another editor’s recent addition", yet another lie: the revert of ITALONYs edits and not a single Romaioi edit in sight! and the revert of ITALONY & Bendiksen63s edits and in the last 500 edits there is not a single edit of Romaioi!!! So, which "cited contributions" of his did I delete??? I did revert the ITALONY & Bendiksen63 edits! none of Romaiois edits!
• and then he increases the slander even more: "Given that Noclador has been able to flout Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines with respect to his conduct, and has received no warning or sanction, then there is no reason for anyone else not to be allowed to do the same. After all, why should some of us have to follow the rules and live up to the Misplaced Pages ethos when others do not?" Where have I flouted the rules???
• Let me summarize: Romaioi doesn't do constructive work, only slander, malign and defame. He is lying, insulting and does show 0 good faith. While I have been doing 500 constructive edits in the last month alone, have contributed massively to wikipedia, have not insulted Romaioi, have not threatened him in any way and have moved on after he was proven to be not connected to the sock circus in question, he has continued for now 5 weeks a campaign to smear my spotless record on wikipeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Noclador). I make it now clear that I will not discuss this matter further and expect this report to be closed at once and that it will be made clear to Romaioi that any further actions of his will result in a indef ban as an "no good faith" editor. --noclador (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• User Noclador is undoubtedly fair and honest, his great contributions to Misplaced Pages surely speak for himself, and his behavior, as character of the Misplaced Pages community, has nothing common with these mendacious accusations against him. Flayer (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ed Fitzgerald's comments are particularly unhelpful and really do not help to resolve the situation, nor do they reflect what actually happened. The fact is that noclador was not the only editor involved in dealing with Generalmesse's sockpuppet circus, I helped out in a small way. To be brutally honest, as I have been with Romaioi, had I spotted his contribution I would have added him to the sock puppet report myself; his edits fitted the pattern of the sock puppet master and he actually restored one of his contributions. noclador withdrew from contact with Romaioi after he responded by calling him a liar and it got unpleasant; if you check Romaioi's talk page here, you can see the explanation and response. I have no doubt that noclador would have apologised for the accusation were it not for the personal attack and Romaioi's aggressive demand for an apology. I tried to smooth things over myself here. Now I have attempted to explain at length to Romaioi that noclador's actions were not aimed at him personally but he just doesn't seem to understand how this works. I issued a Wikiquette alert after Romaioi put up another summary attacking noclador in the hope that this could be defused.

Essentially the accusations against noclador are entirely unfounded, Romaioi's responses usually fit into the TLDR category and to be honest I'm somewhat non-plussed by his inability to see that he was not targeted personally and his pursuit of noclador, with accusations of lying and abuse of power as well as unnecessary personal attacks do seem to indicate he has taken things incredibly personally. I can understand him being somewhat upset at being caught up in the sock puppet case but he has really gone the wrong way around airing a grievance to the point that his single-minded pursuit of noclador has the hallmark of stalking. Justin talk 13:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody summarize the above material, i'm too busy eating lunch, tia, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment by Noclador. I've never found him abusive of power or lying at all; he's a good wikipedian, in my view, doing useful work on national armies, among other things. While I have not examined all the facts of the case, Noclador doing such things seems to me to be extremely unlikely. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) User:Romaioi, do you wish to comment on User:Noclador's description of your conduct? If you ask for an apology but act that aggressively and belligerently, I wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't want to bother with you again. Be civil. You asked him, he doesn't respond, don't bother him again. Assume good faith on his part for his conduct. Do not assume bad intentions from an error. What is the purpose of bringing it up again and again? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a bit of a hit for my comment earlier, perhaps justifiably, but I did think it was clear that I was responding to the request for a summary of Romaioi's claim, which I think is what I provided. I would also like to point out that it was I who notified Noclador of this thread (which I mistakenly marked as being on AN/I rather than AN). My apologies to Noclador, and I think I'll now bow out before I mess up again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 19:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I was in a minor way involved in the SSP case that has caused this mutual rancour. While the checkuser results eventually exonerated Romaioi, his/her coincidental appearance at the same time as Generalmesse's massive sockfarm caused him/her to get accused of being one of the socks. Noclador was, as far as I am concerned, at all times acting absolutely in good faith, and did a sterling job in getting Generalmesse and all his puppets shut down. It was deeply unfortunate that Romaioi got caught up in it, but, frankly, at the time I (and, I believe, most other observers) believed him/her to be a sock. I have since apologised to Romaioi for this, and he has graciously accepted my apology. I think if he had received the same apology from Noclador then the issue would've gone away. However, for whatever reason, Noclador has decided not to apologise. Romaioi should accept that and move on. Now, Romaioi's lengthy post at the top of this thread smacks to me of a vendetta. I am sure that Romaioi as a good faith contributor will be happy at this point, having presented his/her grievances at length, to drop the issue and return to productive good faith editing, which appears to me to be Noclador's modus operandi at all times. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I can qualify Noclador as a person who is always ready to hear what others have to say (or read, anyway). He gladly takes information offered to him, as long as it comes from reliable sources. I remember how once I provided information from a reliable military review that proved to be partially incorrect. Another wikipedian corrected it. Did Noclador throw a fit and insult him? No. Noclador took the information and corrected the graphic. This concerned the Tsahal OrBat, for those who are curious.

I also am the prime witness of his works being used without giving proper credit in a printed military review. It is always a harsh blow for somebody to see his work used not only without proper credit, but actually crediting a completely different person. I warned Noclador. He contacted them. I personally find the e-mail he sent to the review in question as polite and balanced. Those interested can check my talk page.

It is 4am, I am tired, I cannot formulate long speeches in a cohesive manner. So I shall make it short: Noclador is amongst the best contributors to this whole project, a person that makes Misplaced Pages interesting, reliable and trustworthy and who is always ready to listen(read) what others have to say(type). Thank you for your attention Russoswiss (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Romaioi seems to be a sock of banned User:Brunodam. Brunodam had/has the habit to create socks wherever he goes, was massively pushing Italian nationalistic-revisionist POV in articles about the Balkans and the former Italian minorities there, liked to threat other users with lawyers, added fascist propaganda to various articles, insulted other editors and so on... Also he usually would leave very long comments and then revisit them often to change/add stuff (example: 1.2. edit). Romaioi fits nicely in this behavior - especially as Romaioi was the name to Roman people that lived in the Balkans after the partition of the Roman empire (with just 8,280 google results for Romaioi one must be quite an expert to a) know the name and b) know it is Greek). More damming proof that Romaioi and Brunodam are related: Until yesterday I never had anything to do with Brunodam, but suddenly he comes and lashes wildly and - let my say it clearly - insanely out at me. --noclador (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I said I would stay out of this, but I have a question that Noclador's supposition raises: wasn't checkuser run on Romaioi? And if he was a sock of Brunodam, wouldn't that have shown up? Or is a checkuser run more limited in scope? (I'm not being disingenuous here, I don't know the answer to these questions.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The SSP check was done against IP by Generalmesse, Brunodam is a different user. Brunodam appears to have returned but is attacking Noclador on those diffs. Now Noclador has never dealt with Brunodam, only Generalmesse. It could be that it is a deliberate attempt by a sock pupper master to create friction. Justin talk 22:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I won’t read and comment the excessive accusation above; all I can say as a user and administrator of projects Noclador participates in (de.wikipedia.org, Commons) is that Noclador is a trustworthy user with valuable contributions. Please pay attention to his work and behavior, then judge. --Polarlys (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few points clear before I present my view. Firstly, I am not a sysop nor checkuser. I have not been involved in this, or any related affair until this post. I have only recently become acquainted with noclador, having performed a mutual review of some of his order of battle diagrams, having never previously had contact with him nor knowledge of his edits. Similarly, I've never had contact with Romaioi, nor had knowledge of his edits. I would claim that noclador and I have just progressed from acquaintances into friendship from our recent collaboration, and he requested that I add my input to this discussion. In an attempt for impartiality, I have reviewed the pertinent pages regarding the conduct of the two users in question (not the results of the request for checkuser, because that issue is resolved), starting with the original request for checkuser on Giovanni Giove, and including the suspected sockpuppet discussion, two wikiquette alerts: 1st (archived) & 2nd (continuation of the 1st), a post to AN/I, Noclador's talk page, Romaioi's talk archive, and various bits of data scattered on several talk pages linked to above. I'd also like to note that viewing many, many diffs, I have noticed the text "(# intermediate revisions not shown.)" shown, and my assumption is that some of the data has been restricted by sysops or possibly higher.

My take on this incident is as follows: noclador, in attempting to round up the sockpuppets of a prolific vandal, made a reasonable mistake in including an innocent user who, on the surface, followed some similar conventions as the vandal/puppetmaster. He also warned Romaioi, though made a mistake in linking to the discussion page. Now, as far as I understand, this is the purpose and procedure of a checkuser case: to present the accusation and supporting evidence, allow the accused to refute evidence, and then make a conclusion based upon the evidence and an analysis of IP addresses. It seems that this procedure was followed to the letter. While noclador could have avoided the accusation by digging deeper, I don't personally feel that constitutes any sort of violation or uncivil action; after all, he was researching many accounts at the time, and fully expected that more conclusive evidence would be found before any damaging/irreversable actions could be taken, as was the case. The process was allowed to work itself out: mitigating evidence was produced, and the Romaioi was cleared of the accusation.

However, the conduct of the accused has been less than pristine. Naturally, being falsely accused would make anybody angry, adding confusion and disorientation due to his lack of understanding of the process at the time only makes the situation worse. This is not, however, justification for the persistence of this scandal, nor some of the very harsh remarks made on Romaioi's part. I can sympathize with the expectation for an apology, however, in light of the hostility the accused showed his accuser, I cannot fault nocaldor for refusing to make one. I myself would probably have done the same in his place, I'd view such an action as appeasement, which is not mandated by any policy I have ever read. Even if the accused remained civil and not taken the accusation personally, such an apology would not necessarily be mandated (though certainly appropriate) after the "innocent" verdict had been posted on the checkuser case; after all, that was vindication from all wrongdoing. I do not agree that noclador has performed any sort of slander or smearing of Romaioi's reputation, especially outside of the checkuser accusation.

I also find no fault in noclador's decision to limit his involvement in the controversy once it was determined that the accusation may have been faulty. That sort of recusement should be expected whenever a possible conflict of interest could taint further proceedings. Removing yourself from action where your presence could worsen it is totally understandable. I also applaud noclador's attempts to move past this and get on with his life. It is in that spirit that I think this notice should be closed, and Romaioi be directed to review Misplaced Pages's policy on harassment and ignoring personal attacks so that he may finally let the issue rest, though it is entirely within his rights to seek a forum for his grievances, and ask for appeal to the decisions (there are several possible venues for further dispute resolution: Requests for mediation, informal mediation, formal mediation, request for comment, and even the "Supreme Court of Misplaced Pages", the request for arbitration). I am unclear as to what Romaioi desires or expects these proceedings to produce... Administrative actions against noclador? Jimbo Wales to beat him up and force him to apologize? Unlikely, but I would ask him to further clarify on exactly what he seeks. As far as I know, no double standard exists because both have been reprimanded for thier misdeeds in this whole process.

I would also like to take this time to applaud Romaioi for being otherwise gracious and civil to other users. I would hope that you can drop this grudge and move on to more productive matters. Looking at you contributions, you've been wrapped up in this for far too long. My advice for you is to take a short wikibreak, spend some time with your family, then come back and focus on your passion for history.

Thank you for reading this huge diatribe, it took forever to articulate and type up! bahamut0013♠♣ 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Anna Quist

She has been repeatedly adding unsourced information to multiple articles and has broken the 3RR. All of her edits are based around promoting the 'Anarchist International', an organization probably made up of only her and two or three other people. She seems to resist any form of reason and automatically assumes bad faith. She has never shown any sign of being anything but disruptive. I suggest she is blocked. Zazaban (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Some context for the uninvolved:

• first AFD to delete Anna's article on the "Anarchist International", closed as delete
• Previous ANI thread documenting Anna Quist's repeated insertion of lies into articles in order to promote her organisation
• second AFD, closed as delete, decision to resalt the article
• attempts by Anna Quist to recreate under a different name (speedied several times and finally salted)
• Thread on the Anarchism Task Force talkpage; no task force members are willing to vouch for the organization

RfC on whether the website of the "Anarchist International" should be used as a source; no one is willing to stand up for it.

: Four reversions in less than 24 hours by Anna Quist to restore the disputed content, while the RfC in which she was receiving no support was ongoing.

See User_talk:Anna Quist for the efforts of several administrators to deal with this editor.

I think the community has been more than tolerant of and facilitating to this editor, and has gotten no useful encyclopedic content in return. She may or not be contributing in good faith, but is certainly disruptive and sapping the resources of editors, despite numerous counsels to reform. I concur with Zazaban above that all her edits seem to be promotional, and shows no sign of becoming a productive contributor. Anna Quist has been notified of this discussion. Skomorokh 22:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• She is a Witch! Burn the witch! Of course she's a witch, she turned me into a NEWT! (I got better...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation on International of Anarchist Federations. —Travis 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

She now appears to be using a sockpuppet to continue to revert to her version of the article. Zazaban (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to block

Some ochlarchist/unscientifical administrator has blocked my account. This is a severe blow to libertarian research on wikipedia! Unblock me this instant we will be forced to try you at the International Anarchist Tribunal and you will be issued a brown card and be removed from the anarchist movement. The information I am adding is based on reliable independent third party sources, easily verifiable, and 100% according to Misplaced Pages's principle about verification. It confirms that the Northern sections of IFA-IAF exists 100%. This is no joke. The so called "anorg-warning you are linking to is totally unreliable and 100% a hoax, and is 100% rejected and turned down by IIFOR at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html . If my account is blocked, it is an attack on the truth and verification -- Anna Quist Talk:International_of_Anarchist_Federations#I_have_been_blocked

Skomorokh 23:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

She put a similar one on my talk page as well. Zazaban (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm debating between a reply of total disbelief, feigned shock and horror, or just outright sarcasm. Hersfold 23:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP address has been blocked, by the way. Hersfold 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I can expect my brown card in the mail. —Travis 23:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

May I go and add a sockpuppeteer template to Anna's userpage or does she have to be blocked indefinitely? Zazaban (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It might also be worth noting that the IP was also used by a rather rude troll on anarchism.net, a site that Anna has professed a a strong dislike to. Zazaban (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You gotta be fucking kidding me. International Anarchist Tribunal? Com'on. I consider myself in the "anarchist" category, but this is just hilarious. seicer | talk | contribs 01:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How would such a tribunal be organized? What rules would it follow? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the beauty, as anarchists, they wouldn't have rules nothing would ever happen. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if that qualifies as a legal threat? But if they're anarchist, they have no laws, right...? Hersfold 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, this isn't that difficult to figure out. Anna Quist has been promoting her organization as a monolithic, international, logistically capable organization which is a Serious Threat to the establishment. In order to present this, "she" (assuming the user is female -- she claims to be, but she claims to be many things) has claimed to have been appointed the position of spokeswoman for the group by their "secretariat"; that the group's decisions and proclamations are well known to the international anarchist project, and that this is achieved through a high degree of "scientifical" objectivity in the realm of radical praxis that the degree to which an anarchist society is an "anarchy" can be determined mathematically; that it can properly judge what are non-anarchist organizations and promote "proper" anarchist organizations (the Industrail W.W. vs the International W.W.); that her organizations have sub-groups which in of themselves are substantial enough to be considered the largest of their kind in the realm of green and feminist anarchism; and that the group can claim a lineage going back to some of the oldest anarchist organizations. That she now claims that her organization is large enough to retain its own judiciary system and can "ban" individuals from the anarchist movement, and that this will be known widely enough that the shame will stick and mar that figure's reputation, is not any more laughable than any of her other assertions. She must maintain the image – to the end – that the Anarchist International is Serious Business. Why? Because only its "revolutionary" program, well founded in science, and therefore objectivity, can firmly unite and guide the international urban proletariat towards The Revolution ™. Those brown cards will mark us all as counter revolutionaries and we will be lined up against the wall when the firing squads are primed on the day The Revolution ™ succeeds.

Can't you call see? This is a madness bred from taking yourself and your politics too seriously. Instead of suffering "activist burnout" and disappearing, or becoming a sell out, or getting sent to jail, or any number of fates that tend to befall anarchists, she has taken the extreme step towards a more "serious" revolution. However, because there were no large organizations to satisfy her, she populated her world with fictional secretariats and tribunals. There doesn't need to be an explanation for how an Anarchist Tribunal would work, who staffs it, what laws it enforces, and under who's authority it sends out brown cards. This is the world view Anna Quist has built up for herself, and banning the world view from Misplaced Pages is a tangible threat to her anarchist revolution. Madness.--Cast (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. You do know that you're responding with vehemence to sarcasm and joking, right? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 06:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. My sarcasm has just a bit more bite to it. But wow, ya'know?--Cast (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I think you need to be a bit careful over your response to this situation. You do realise, don't you, that by continuing to address this situation with anything less than the gravity which it merits you're rapidly aligning yourself with the counter-anarchic Walesian neo-authoritarian clique, typical of the treacherous post-Godwin-esque rule of law that's been imposed on an unknowing proletariate by a persistent tyrannical oligarchy perpetuated by totalitarian methods of repression and deception to hide the fact that in the background the neo-New World Order is being controlled by the secretive behind-the-scenes manoevring of an arch-Blairite-Bushite faction? _Gb 12:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A brown card? Is that the thing you get when you run out of toilet paper? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a brown hand. Keeper ǀ 76 15:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What? No running dogs of capitalism? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, though, I only just got the pun inherent in her name. How slow is that? _Gb 16:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Faster than me. Oy! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I never wrote this note

I never wrote this note. Someone has been setting me up!!!~(Anna Quist (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

It must be a really good imitator. On August 6, you get blocked at 23:05 and then that IP at 23:09 reverts to your version of the article using the same words you always use and makes at 23:12 a comment on the talk page that copy/pastes one of the last comments that you did on your account before being blocked . --Enric Naval (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Time for WP:RFCU I think, this is getting to be a tiresome burden on otherwise productive editors. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That IP has also vandalized my user page and tried to rig the first AFD for Anarchist International. It uses the same sort of language that Anna and only Anna uses and shares allegiance to the AI and if you look at the contribution history you will see that the IP has only been editing in situations that involve Anna. I can't think of anyone it could be. Zazaban (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Also note for the record that Anna Quist (talk · contribs) corrected some typos in a message originally left two days previous by 74.208.16.12 (talk · contribs). – Luna Santin (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will's DYK topic ban

It seems only a short time ago that we were discussing it, but the issue of Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) has to be raised again. The background to this is that Blechnic (talk · contribs) called for this ban based on discovered copyright violations, the worsening of articles to make them meet the requirements of DYK, etc. Accordingly a discussion was held here.
When Wilhelmina appeared to ignore the ban, it came up again , where I realised that, since WW refused to engage the community at the noticeboard, to assume good faith would be to assume that she hadn't noticed. I thus notified her, and closed the request, despite some protestations by Blechnic on my talk.
This led Abd to regard me as the "responsible party" for the ban - I accepted that I had effectively closed the discussion, and thus could be regarded as "responsible", which I did principally to give Abd a point of contact since he seems to have styled himself as WW's advocate in these matters (see her talk page and archives, and here for examples). Subsequently, Abd has decided that the community consensus was illegitimate because the evidence the community used did not exist. He consequently believes that I should overturn the topic ban. Now despite my naturally high opinion of myself I felt that I can't undo what I believe was the will of the community. I therefore invite another admin to check whether my judgement of community consensus at the first discussion was correct, although some editors here seemed to agree.
Furthermore, there is the question of when the topic ban may be overturned. I believe the consensus was along the lines of There exists a DYK ban for Wilhelmina at least until she tells us she understands and is willing to abide by copyvio rules and stop treating DYK medals as an end in themselves. I have invited, on her talkpage and through Abd for her to give me such an assurance that I could bring to the community and say "there it is", but no such assurance has yet to be received. I defer re-assessment of my closing arguments to other admins, and the latter question (once again) to the community at large, since my judgement has been repeatedly called into question on my talkpage, and for all I know, I may very well be wrong. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

From a review of the above, I would suggest that a topic ban consensus was very apparent and that the subsequent discussion was properly closed once Wilhelmina Will had been advised of the ban and invited to participate in the discussion of its implementation. I feel the argument that the ban is invalid because there is no determined time period is hollow; the editor is topic banned until such time the editor engages with the community with regard to the concerns raised - at that point the appropriate period (if any) before the editor can be allowed to contribute to DYK nominations can be determined. It appears that Abd's conclusions and requests are driven by considerations other than policy interpretation and application of the communities consensus, and are not shared by the majority. I see no reason to vary the sanctions on Wilhelmina Will's account until such time as Wilhemina Will starts a dialogue with those who have expressed concerns regarding her editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with LHvU - until and unless Wilhelmina Will makes an assurance the poor behaviour will cease (even accepting the behaviour WAS poor would be a start), the topic ban must remain. Neıl ☄ 10:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In fairness to Abd, he appears to now be contending that the consensus was flawed, and thus my close showed a "lack of wisdom" (or words to that effect) because there was no problem to begin with. He says that there is no evidence of copyvios and so the topic ban is an error that I should not have made. I'd paste the discussion over here, but it's pretty lengthy - it's at the bottom of my talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

His is, and was then, a singular viewpoint. A lot of people apparently reviewed the evidence and concluded there was a problem. You did not make a decision, you enacted one made by the community. Perhaps Abd might consider that when they are the singular voice against the majority, then it may be them who is wrong. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be true if I were a singular voice. I'm not. I've written an extensive response, but it is sitting on another computer. This topic ban would not be sustained through an RfC or ArbComm review, I'm certain of that. What has happened is that a lot of editors did not review the evidence and came to a conclusion based on an assumption that the charges were true, and they !voted in that line, some actually stated, "if the charges are true, then a topic ban is appropriate," and I will, in a full comment, provide diffs. Fritzpoll, however, has not fairly presented my argument, though I believe it was his intention to do so. To date, no significant evidence, enough to justify a ban, has been presented for a topic ban. Therefore Fritzpoll has made a closure decision without reviewing the evidence, but, apparently, based on his own opinion outside of what was presented in the discussion, but not only without expressing that evidence, but also not expressing it later, when questioned about it (specifically, about the copyvio charges which he stated were central). He was therefore not a neutral administrator, one more flaw in this affair. At this point there is enough evidence -- but not presented here yet -- for a neutral administrator to reverse the decision, perhaps also sending it back to that community (AN/I) for review; though I would contend that this was the wrong forum in the first place for dispute resolution. AN and AN/I are not part of W:DR, which corresponds to a legal system, whereas AN/I is like calling 911. 911 makes immediate decisions for the protection of the project, but not binding or lasting ones, in the presence of significant disagreement. --Abd (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated on my talkpage to you, I based the closing decision both on the consensus of the community and the AN/I discussion (that I have not linked here) which dealt with her copyvios and introduction of inaccurate material. You are being disingenuous in saying that I acted in a non-neutral fashion when I have already described to you how my decision was reached, and in saying that I have not responded to your request for information, which I did on my talkpage. I also invited you to ask another administrator to "close" the discussion, on the presumption that, if they disagreed, the topic ban could be overturned. I asked you to supply the proof to back up your statement that she had clearly learned her lesson, so that I could propose overturning the topic ban. I asked you to get WW to talk to me so that I could propose overturning the topic ban. Instead you decide to attack my position by disputing my neutrality or helpfulness in this matter - I have not vested interest in WW being banned from DYK (hardly an overbearing restriction in itself), and certainly not indefinitely. Perhaps you need to choose your words with greater care? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Fritzpoll has failed, apparently, to understand the basis of the problem. Yes, Fritzpoll has "described" the basis of his ban. He based in on two charges. I have a detailed response at . What you call, below, "the facts of his argument," have not been presented by you, or anyone at AN or AN/I, ever. My argument is that there was no evidence presented showing that the charges were anything more than Blechnic's warped and exaggerated allegations. (Which opinion, by the way, has been expressed by multiple editors at various times, before I was ever involved.) In short, there were two "facts" underlying your ban: (1) copyvio, and (2) padding an article to meet DYK 1500 words. The latter is so trivial that it's hardly worth mentioning, but you did mention it. Unless it were shown that this editor continued to do this, and more than rarely, it's not worthy of a topic ban, and the padding would disappear if it actually damaged the article, rather quickly. As it did. The first charge, though, copyvio, would be serious. How do we deal with editors who plagiarize text? Do we topic ban them? No! I don't know of any other example, though possibly there might be an odd one. We warn them, and we block them if the action is repeated after warning. Often we will warn them more than once. However, no evidence showing any pattern of copyvio, nor even a single example, as I recall, was asserted in either AN/I report filed by Blechnic -- and this is what you referred me to when claiming that you had acted based on evidence. No evidence was asserted here, either, nor did you, in bringing this here, note the very clear basis for my effort to persuade you to lift the ban, which I am required to do before proceeding with further process. The basis wasn't what you claimed. There was a consensus at AN/I. It was, however, a consensus of editors who aren't responsible for confirming the evidence, and a number, indeed, noted that they had simply assumed the charges to be true, and therefore their approval of a topic ban was conditional, and you failed to confirm the condition. And many others, I'm sure, did not look for the evidence, or were confused by the red herrings presented, the few allegedly outrageous mistakes of WW, which, however, were really only outrageous if they were repeated, particularly if repeated after warning, plus some sort of dark assumptions based on WW's "failure to respond." Which should have been irrelevant. (A positive response would be a basis for not topic banning, based on AGF, but a lack of response is never an offense, only the repetition of problem behavior after warning.)

I did not bring this report to AN, nor would I have done so, until I'd exhausted WP:DR, though there is a basis for an attempt at AN/I (I consider that the ban has seriously damaged the project and should be lifted promptly). But it's here, so I've responded. And I will go to the next step in DR, unless some admin takes a look at this and lifts the ban, which, having been discussed, could now be done without wheel-warring. Had anyone confirmed the evidence, sufficient evidence to block, it would be another matter. --Abd (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I will note, now, that I'm accused, via a warning on my Talk page, by User:Jehochman, of failing to AGF for Fritzpoll. I might have made a mistake somewhere, but I am not aware of ever questioning Fritzpoll's good faith, and I have assumed it all along. I have concluded that he erred, and I requested that he review his decision, and then questioned its correctness, but I do not believe and have never believed that he intended anything other than the welfare of the project, and I assume this, as well, of the editors who have been, the last few minutes, piling onto my Talk page to "second" the warning. It's not over, folks, until the diva sings. There is a reason why we don't make decisions based on the first few !votes that come in, they are often biased. We'll see. I'

d say, given that I haven't filed any AN or ANI reports, started any RfCs, or even edit warred or maintained tendentious debate against an informed consensus, that blocking me based on my history would probably be disruptive, I'd not advise it. But, then again, maybe some good would come out of such, you never know. It was just suggested, yesterday, to me, that I go again for RfA. Last time the !vote was about 50-50, after the canvassed votes due to an SPA -- blocked for it -- were disregarded. And the reason given by most voters was that I only had something like 1400 edits at the time. Might be disruptive for me to self-nom, though. I won't do that. --Abd (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I didn't want to be accused of forcing bias in a response by not presenting the facts of his argument. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now commented on your talkpage that Abd should bring his concerns regarding the basis on which consensus for a topic ban was created back to the community which expressed it, and not on the page of the admin that enacted it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, LHvU Fritzpoll (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fritz, I also agree your reading of the consensus was entirely correct. I was considering closing that topic ban discussion myself and I would have closed it exactly the same way. As others have said, if Wilhelmina Will wants the ban overturned, she needs to engage with the community. Sarah 02:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah. I figured my first AN/I close was probably worth checking Fritzpoll (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This was an obvious one. Fritzpoll divined consensus (and an overwhelming one) rightly, and until and unless WW engages with either Fritz personally, or the wider community with regards to the topic ban, it should stay. _D.Jameson 14:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes although some of the way the conclusion was arrived at might be arguable, this was definitely the consensus. What I will say though is that WW herself hasn't edited in five days, and she hasn't done anything to violate or even question that ban herself in the meantime, so the 'blame' for this being made an issue again shouldn't fall on her and I hope this won't effect the outcome. I wish she would talk to the community though to discuss mentoring etc or ask for help, and hope she isn't gone for good. :( Sticky Parkin 13:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is correct, there was a "rough consensus," but this affair shows why AN/I is the wrong venue for complex user conduct investigations and response, it is only good for ad-hoc, easily reversible decisions, made necessary by some immediate hazard. Had there been no rough consensus (and from vote count alone, it was a strong one), I'd have been advising WW to ignore it, and Fritzpoll's later comment to her I would characterize as a warning from an involved administrator. But that's not the case. Hence I've advised WW to respect the topic ban, even though I believe it to be seriously defective. It's also true that WW has not challenged the ban, not once, nor did she repeat, after warning, any of the allegedly improper behavior, not before the ban, nor after it. Mentoring would be a good idea, if it were not an utter waste of time. We propose mentoring for good editors who don't learn from their mistakes without it. Quite simply, that isn't Wilhelmina Will. She is far above average for editors. --Abd (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

When he took responsibility for the ban, Fritzpoll gave this reason for the it: The general argument was that WW was introducing copyright-violating material (despite repeated requests not to do so), and reducing the quality of articles in order to achieve a DYK nomination. As such, I interpreted the situation as a threat to the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. In this context the community consensus for a DYK topic ban was justified.

Now, the "reduction of quality" argument was based on a single incident, and, as was noted by an editor at one point, her problem was that "she didn't know how to bloviate well enough." Clearly, she made a mistake, but it was not even close to being a reason for a topic ban. Copyvio, though, would be much more serious. Indeed, it would be a shortcut to her goal, DYK nominations, to simply copy existing articles that she finds somewhere. Was she doing this?

Repeatedly, in the AN/I reports in question, requests were made for evidence, and I continued this with Fritzpoll, and evidence wasn't provided. The copyvio charges were trumped-up, I must conclude. I suspect that there was some incident, somewhere, but, since there was active request for the evidence at AN/I, and a participating editor -- tendentiously participating -- who would presumably have had access to the evidence, and who did not provide it, there must not have been much! Definitely not enough to justify a topic ban. And there was, in addition, no evidence that she had been warned and persisted beyond the warning. Topic ban, quite simply, was not justified by the evidence presented in the AN/I report, and Fritzpoll has not responded to this particular issue. Instead, he brought this matter here as if the question were the consensus at AN/I, which then produced the simple answer: there was a consensus at AN/I, something we already knew. And, since, Fritzpoll is unwilling, as closing admin, to reverse the ban without going back to AN/I, the simplest recourse is to go back to AN/I with a request to unban, which I intend to do. He shouldn't have brought this here, nor should he bring it there. Going to AN/I simply because someone criticizes something you've done is not appropriate. The reason I would go to AN/I: the project has been damaged, damage continues, and thus the matter justifies an AN/I report requesting immediate action. An unjust topic ban can be expected to drive away some productive editors, and it seems it is doing just that.--Abd (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, AN/I is probably not the venue for that discussion - I would suggest proposing the unban elsewhere, since AN/I is for incidents requiring immediate administrative assistance. The reason I brought it here, Abd, is that you questioned the validity of what I had done - not being so arrogant as to believe that all my words and deeds are without fault, I brought my actions here for scrutiny. Wilhelmina was on a Wikibreak, so it is hardly surprising that she hasn't been editing (look at her edit summaries for today) and she is creating new pages again. I have consistently responded to your request for information, including the original AN/I report where the copyvios were discussed. I have offered opportunities to resolve this repeatedly - that you refuse to counsel WW to engage with the community, refuse to accept my offers of compromise in the form of discussion (where I even offered, under certain conditions, to request the unban myself) and instead embark on this crusade on her behalf is bewildering to me.

You also persist in this idea that I can overturn a topic ban on my own. This is not true - administrators in these instances, as I understand it, enact the will of the community. They do not decide that will - admins are no more special in that regard than any other editor. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to recap this thread into a clear discussion, there are three elements together which brought about the DYK topic ban against Wilhelmina Will. These are discussed in detail in the threads linked to in Fritzpoll's opening paragraph, and can be summarised as follows:

• Wilhelmina Will was found to be introducing copyrighted material into DYK candidates that were being prepared.
• Wilhelmina Will has been found to edit war with others working on DYK candidates in the interest of meeting DYK minimum requirements.
• Wilhelmina Will has been found to be uncivil to others when the subject is discussed, working against the collaborative ethos.

While one of these issues on it's own would cause concern, it is the three together that have generated this situation and all three that need to be improved upon before the ban is likely to be rescinded. It is also worth bearing in mind that blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive. In this case, they are designed to prevent DYK submissions from being created that are potentially damaging, either by worsening the experience of other editors wishing to collaborate on the article or through potentially copyright infringing material being introduced. It is also why, in this instance, Wilhelmina Will has been encouraged to demonstrate an admission that these problems exist and a resolve to avoid repeating them in the future so that the topic ban can be lifted.

In addition, consensus does not equate approval without dissent. Although there are some editors who disagreed with the topic ban and felt that other measures were appropriate, the broad consensus was for a topic ban to be applied. Such a measure does not require the approval of ArbCom or an RfC to be implemented, and is a common remedy introduced by the community in response to editor concerns in a particular area while allowing them the freedom to contribute to other unrelated areas.

To conclude, I would encourage Abd and Wilhelmina Will to work constructively through this topic ban, demonstrate a willingness to contribute to lifting this through positive means and in the fullness of time rejoin the DYK contribution process with the consent of the community at large. I am concerned that any protracted argument or dispute will only cause further contributors to leave the project, which is somehting I think we can all agree is an undesirable outcome. Consensus has shown a clear way to resolve this issue, and I would humbly request in the interests of all concerned that it is followed. Many thanks, Gazimoff 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, now User:Fritzpoll has been chased from the project for at least awhile. Good grief. _D.Jameson 13:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. All that happened was that I questioned his close decision (made something like a week after the apparent AN/I consensus which had, however, never been closed, with no administrator taking responsibilty for a topic ban allegedly decided there). I did not call into question his editing, ever. I claimed no administrative misconduct rising to a level of bad faith, for I believed, and continue to believe, that he simply erred by not confirming the crucial copyvio claim, not that he intended to harm anyone. He was the one who brought this report here, when a simpler and more direct response, following WP:DR would have been more appropriate. He did not need to insert himself into this, he could have simply done nothing when I pointed out to him that he had warned Wilhelmina Will of a topic ban that was never properly decided. And then he could have made his decision, and continued to do nothing more. I didn't make this into a drama, he did. But, still, he had options, and continues to have options. He has taken one of them, which is, essentially, to do nothing, unless he changes his mind. It's a legitimate option: let the community sort it out. It's the option that Wilhelmina Will took; however, the paradox here is that he held it against her. I won't. No process was begun that he had any obligation to respond to, at all, with no immediate risk from silence, so I find his withdrawal puzzling. --Abd (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason for people's reactions and the withdrawal, I think, is that it is difficult sometimes to understand exactly what it is you are saying, Abd. I say this as someone who thinks you often say some very perceptive things, and as someone who disagrees with the views that others are developing about your contributions (see your talk page section and warning). I think the problem is that to engage in a full and frank discussion with you on a topic can be rather difficult due to the length and abstractness of your responses, and the end result can be uncertain. I don't think what you do is harassment, but I can understand some people getting frustrated with the approach you take. I did ask before whether you had considered putting some of your views into an essay? Sometimes the points you are trying to make are best made in the abstract, before alighting on people as examples, if you get what I mean? For the record, I have supported Blechnic (someone you are criticising at the moment) over their flagging of copyvios in the past, so I think you both make good points, while I'm not 100% sure exactly what started this latest incident (I've been away for a few weeks). Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Carcharoth. It should be noted that when I have an agenda, a decision I've made and I'm trying to persuade the community to act, eventually will I take the time to boil it down to brief, effective speech. It takes a lot of time, so when I write at greater length, it is in discussion mode, it is not intended as persuasion, but rather exploration. It should also be recognized that this rewriting takes a lot of time, discussion is far easier, and that this problem is typical for writers like me. I did not file this AN/I report and am simply responding here, with information and analysis. While it could save a lot of fuss if someone looked at what I've written in the past about Blechnic, I'm not expecting that, though I've been succinct, actually, in some comments on AN/I that were simply ignored. But I've seen long-term, highly experienced administrators filing cogent reports ignored on AN/I. That's part of the problem that I really want to address. I do intend to write about "what started this incident," unless it becomes moot, in which case I may get distracted from that. Yes, I understand why some people "get frustrated." I've been seeing this for better than twenty years of on-line conferencing and communication experience. I don't hold it against them. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that I shut up when I have something I think important to say.

I develop the ideas that I might put into an essay by communicating with that part of the community that cares to read what I write, not for the tl;dr crowd. Some people read what I write, some don't. Unless I'm in action mode, which will be obvious, nobody has any obligation to read what I write, and there is no serious hazard from skipping it. Again, thanks. --Abd (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

goes beyond that doesn't it? more firmly implied by your dire threat on your talkpage that my "administrative future" might depend on reading your 11KB post. --87.114.149.224 (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy Shit! 87.114 is a User:Fredrick day IP. Two possibilities: Fritzpoll is Fredrick day, a banned editor, which I absolutely did not suspect, though it now does make some kind of sense, or this is Fredrick day is trying to stir up shit by pretending to be User:Fritzpoll. It's checkuser time, to clear Fritzpoll, if nothing else. (I would not argue that Fritzpoll should automatically be blocked if checkuser confirms that he is Fredrick day, but I think it is essential that we know, given what has come down here. (FYI, folks, Fredrick day was himself exposed most clearly because he apparently forgot he was logged in and edited signing his post with the sig of an identified vandal; if Fp is Fd, this, then, could be him forgetting that he was not logged in, thus revealing his IP. But it would take checkuser of Fp to verify this.--Abd (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Em.. I'm quoting the guy - doesn't the link to his statement give that away? I know you like to go on fishing trips and accusing people of being me - but your harrassement of fitzpoll should stop at this stage, you drove him away, what more do you want?--87.114.149.224 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In the same edit, though, we have: "...until I'm sure that I can edit without feeling the dread, without waiting for you to tell me..." - I read that as Fritzpoll saying 'it's you or me and I'm not coming back until you avoid me or are gone'. I can understand that is being written under stress, but it is equally unhelpful. I have very little sympathy with people who say things are too stressful due to someone's edits, and then argue against that someone from halfway through the door while saying they are leaving. Misplaced Pages is a stressful place, and the balance has to be struck between reducing that stress and not skewing discussions. Take a break or reassess how you do things here (one of the lessons to learn is how to handle people like Abd, as well as how to handle departures, and, to be fair, for Abd to reassess how he does things as well), but don't use leaving as a parting shot at someone. Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) For example, if Fritzpoll now says he is leaving again because of what I said, the cycle starts again. See User:NoSeptember/Leaving for more on this.

I find your characterization of Fritz's message incredibly unfair. I didn't see it as a "parting shot" at Abd, I saw it as a final response to an editor who had hounded him over the course of several days over a properly made administrative call, threatening all sorts of process-related recourses, until finally Fritz just had enough of it, and decided to take a long break (at least). If you look at Fritz's initial responses to Abd, he was accomodating in the extreme, unfailingly polite, and in no way contributed to the mess that this has currently become. Fritz is not the problem here in any way, Carch. To suggest otherwise does him and the work he's done here a great disservice. _D.Jameson 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But it's a pattern of behaviour - if you look at Abd's user page - he's been warned off before of making those "you need to listen to me or it's trouble for you" warnings to administrators. Everyone has a right to speak but you don't get to try and force people to listen with vague threats of trouble. --87.114.149.224 (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This changes the complexion of this entirely. I had no general complaint about Fritzpoll, which is why the departure made no sense to me. However Fredrick day has bailed from attempts to persuade him to negotiate a return because he knows that I'd maintain some kind of notice of his activities, which he seems to be totally allergic to. Given what he's done in the past, some level of awareness is necessary. He has stated, elsewhere, that he had other accounts, so it would not be surprising if he is Fritzpoll, but quite surprising that he'd make the mistake of editing as him without logging in, he's usually much more careful. There remains the possibility that he is merely pretending to be Fritzpoll, but there is now strong reason to suspect Fritzpoll is a sleeper account for Fredrick day. There was very, very little hazard to Fritzpoll here, unless he persisted through much more process, starting with RfC (which would, of course, require another editor's certification, I could not do that on my own), so the strong reaction does make sense. That's how Fredrick day would react if he imagined I was harassing him. We'll see. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

BKLisenbee and Opiumjones 23 topic ban, redux

On July 25, User:FayssalF proposed a topic ban for ] (] · ]) and ] (] · ]). There were no objections before the text was archived, so I am working under the assumption that the topic ban is effective as of the time FayssalF posted it. The edit warring in question has continued, with edits directly from the BKLisenbee account (link, link, link etc.), along with anonymous edits that I suspect were made by, or on behalf of, Opiumjones 23 e.g. reminding BKLisenbee about the topic ban (link, link) along with abusive edit summaries (link). FayssalF has described a troubling conflict of interest on the part of both users. Furthermore, both appear to be single purpose accounts (i.e. centered around a group of articles having to do with Beat Generation and related figures in Morocco). I've seen this go on for a couple years, and FayssalF, who has tried to mediate this all along, must have infinite patience or some unspecified reason for not simply blocking these two accounts and being done with it. I'm blocking both users indefinitely: given the continual COI, SPA, and edit warring, I don't see what else these editors are contributing to the encyclopedia other than their quarreling over a certain set of articles. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Opiumjones 23's block has been lifted, as checkuser evidence points to BKLisenbee as the culprit, evidently an attempt at a frame-up (, ). Previously, BKLisenbee had insisted that as long as he is to be blocked, then both ] (] · ]) and Opiumjones 23 should be as well. PiCo, for what it's worth, has made Misplaced Pages edits across a range of topics outside those included in this ban. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been one main reason why I never blocked both accounts indefinitely...

• They are the only accounts with major edits (90%?) at all the concerned articles. We have had some similar situations. If you block the only existing editors of a disputed article then you'd risk ending up with a biased, an advert article or some BLP violations. The articles may need a review from third parties but without the help of these accounts nothing can be reached. They are the main people who know all details about the topics in question. The problem is that nobody cares much about the topics they edit. I have asked for help many times using multiple noticeboards but there has been little interest.

My topic ban was meant to encourage discussions at talk pages. They had already agreed to all the requirements and conditions I proposed a few months ago. I assume part of the responsability in this mess. I have been quite busy, for a few months -- both on and off-wiki, and that probably caused the failure of the plan agreed by all parties. I am less busy nowadays and I suggest a conditional unblock:

• Participation will be limited to bringing reliable sources for questionable and disputed edits to talk pages for a review. I'll post a notice at the WikiProject Music talk page and noticeboard and hope some people would be interested in reviewing the articles. In case there would be no people interested then I can do that myself as they had already agreed to it. You can help, Gyrofrog. And of course, no personal attacks (inappropriate conduct and name calling) otherwise we'll be obliged to block the offender and communications would become limited to e-mail. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 02:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, I don't see how you are responsible for any of this mess. I understand your point about why you would allow their continued participation, at the same time there is an obvious COI on the part of both editors, and as each seems to have such a big personal stake in the outcome I don't see how this could possibly lead to less-biased articles. This is further complicated by the checkuser results that Hersfold has reported, I can't think of any good reason to unblock BKLisinbee, nor can I see any good faith behind such actions. In any case, I don't think it's right that, thus far, you've shouldered the responsibility for mediating this all along. It was obvious that the two had exhausted your patience if not the community's. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Since my name has been mentioned I'd like to add a comment - though I'm not sure I'm really allowed to, as a non-admin. Anyway, for what it's worth: yes, I've been editing the Paul Bowles article lately, and it's turned into an edit war with BKLisinbee. This is because any attempt to edit that page in a way BKLisinbee doesn't like results in a reversion - he believes he owns the page. What I've been doing is trying to protect an edit or group of edits reached in a rare period when a whole group of editors were present, and none of them were BKLisinbee. Those editors were the gay mafia - yes, they do exist - and they were trying to insert justification for including Bowles in their favourite category, gay and lesbian writers. To help them out, I added a section on Bowles' achievement, which was previously lacking. Personally, I think a writer's sexuality should only be mentioned should only be mentioned if and as it's relevant to his achievement. Bowles' sexuality was pretty marginal to his career as writer and musician - only one short story deals with gay sex, out of a pretty big oeuvre. But it's also a fact that that story is frequently anthologised in gay collections, and that's notable enough to merit inclusion in the article, IMO. BKLisinbee, however, is on a mission to whitewash Bowles' reputation - he won't have anything that paints the Master as anything other than a red-blooded heterosexual. The facts don't seem to bear him out - Bowles' obituary in the BBC website, for example, explicitly mentions his homosexuality. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't mention this in passing, although I don't want to allow it to dominate the article. PiCo (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

While any edit warring is discouraged, the dispute you have with BKLisinbee appears to be separate from the one between him and Opiumjones 23, and my impression is that you are not affected by the topic ban (in which Fayssal did not mention your name, anyway). You don't seem to have the same personal stake in these articles that the others do, your contributions are across a range of subjects (and that was the point of my mentioning you, sorry this wasn't clear). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, your involvement is minimal and as Gyroforg explais, you don't have the same personal stake in these articles that the others do.

P.S. I have no particular interest in the sexual orientations of Paul Bowles but "he was a lover of men and boys" is a tabloid lingo; something far away from our practices and MoS guidelines. Another note, isn't paulbowles.org a primary source in this case? The best scenario would be using a third party reliable source. It seems like a synthesis indeed especially that PB doesn't explicitely and literally say he "loved boys and men." -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Re paul Bowles in fact the Bowles page is central to the other issues as it was Bowles and Hamris 50 year long enmity, despite social meetings, that created the Jououka/Jajouka mess with Bowles stirring the pot. The book to read that clarifies matters is "Without Bowles: The Genius of Mohamed M'Rabet" by Andrew Clandermond and Terence McCarthy, (Tangier 2006) The authors assert that Bowles deliberately mislead publishers on facts regarding M'Rabet (Page 95) discusses his homosexuality and lover Yacoubi (PP 100-1). Many mis-truths constructed by Bowles are being continued after his death by people working for his estate and official website through this site.

As to the topic ban. I think that the User:Emerman (Did you never did check user him Fayssal?) sock of Lisenbee drove all reasonable editors away. My own attempts to get a sourced rational and accurate version on various pages may benefit those editors. I am happy to leave notes on talk pages re errors and sources. keep up the good work PicoOpiumjones 23 (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Opiumjones 23, I cannot respond to your question regarding the CheckUser explicitely but I can assure you, as in the cases of Tuathal (talk · contribs) and Abelelkrim (talk · contribs), that they would have been already blocked for sockpuppetry if they were the same user. I have some few notes:

• I have just received an e-mail from user:BKLisenbee telling me that he is not the one who edited with IPs lately. I then asked him for more clarifications. I am still waiting for that.
• You had already agreed not to use people's real names. Is there any reason why aren't you stopping?

• It looks that you are involving user:PiCo more than enough. Please read and understand my response to user:PiCo above. Him editing Paul Bowles is one thing while you editing that article is another thing. You have been using it to pursue a blatant clear agenda. What is important to you is the relative relationship between Paul Bowles and your real-life activities. You explain it better than no one else when you say above that "the Bowles page is central to the other issues as it was Bowles and Hamris 50 year long enmity". Isn't that because Hamri is also central to your real-life activities?
• I haven't followed the full violations of the terms agreed upon (see ). Just a random check leads me to one of the central disputed articles which is Jajouka or Joujouka (you know what name to choose). The article has an external link (we have plenty of times discussed the nature of external links in this dispute) but it seems that you are still using your interview as a unique external link. This violates clearly our agreement. I am not sure if you are still using the brink.com website as a source.
• I suggest you recuse yourself here as you are officially topic banned. It is also unfair to listen to you here while dismissing the other party's points and claims. You have both done wrong. You both deserve being topic banned but getting one party blocked indef while keeping the other one half-free is nonsense. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did I use real names? User:BKLIsenbee is the same as BKLisenbee, therefore i did not use the User's real name. Yacoubi is dead and his name is in the book mentioned and others.

The book reffed is an important source.

• I did not block User:BKLisenbee and I have not been involved with multiple wars with editors over POV as he has. I did not try to frame users and I did not blank pages from Calgary IPs, or act in concert with other editors as recent edits on the various pages by User Jajoukatruth and BKL show they have been.

• I have tried over and over again to comply and consult with you over a wide range of sources and issues at the Fayssal/JK page but was the only voice there !!!!

You did not respond to my emails regards many questions. You seem to be overly concerned about USer BKL's pleadings.

• I am happy to be topic banned if the other party and his socks are also.
• You state above that this ban is from editing and that you would be happy to receive info on talk pages.However you generally ignore such info in my experiences.
• I can't be made responsible for User:BKLisenbee's indef block. I think that many users and editors will welcome that block and pages will improve greatly.part from the Paul Bowles page you should look at the Choukri and M'Rabet pages that are full of his POV edits. Chourki was explicit in his condemnation of Bowles in Morocxcan newspaper articles before his untimely death.
• The new sources that I used on recent edits are 100% bone fide and independent of me.
• I have researched and published work on Brion Gysin and William Burroughs before Misplaced Pages or indeed the internet as we know it was conceived. Therefore I am an expert on those area, regarding both primary and secondary sources. Note that musch of the background info on the cvarious Joujouka/Jajouka pages was added by me and has not been attacked by BKL or his socks.
• paul Bowles.org is as reliable as the Jewish Internet Defence web site Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I emailed you a recent article from the Guardian and one from the Irish Times. Both papers are papers of record. Factual errors are/can be addressed through the letters pages or through other actions. No one has questioned a single fact in either articleOpiumjones 23 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You used a real name above. No idea?

You are an expert on the area. You are deeply involved. You know most of the details -as does the other side. You are a music expert having financial interests in telling the world that Jajouka should be spelled Joujouka, that Master Musicians of Joujouka are the real ones and Master musicians of Jajouka are impostors, Bowles was a "lover of boys and men" (why not just say gay or pedophile if you got independent reliable sources?). Using Misplaced Pages to advertise your own festival is inappropriate. You are sourcing it using your own site indeed! And I know very well that your festival (especially the unauthorized filming of the tomb). If you were here for neutrality you'd have reported that as well. But, no. Instead you are using your own non-notable website (same for the other party's website) to tell us about a failed festival. No, that is totally inappropriate here. You had done the same to promote your music album and you were warned. On the other hand, you are posting and following each other on the internet. Your comments are found everwhere the other band announces something about their activities. This is true for the other side as well but it seems clear to me that you are managing a real internet campaign. I wouldn't care about all this bruhaha but you are using Misplaced Pages as a battleground and being topic banned is the least that can be done. You both have been topic banned but appearing now to tell us here that you are so correct respecting policy/guidelines/agreemnts is nonsense.

Yes Frank. You have e-mailed me The Guardian and The Irish Times articles. I also receive similar consultations from the other side in similar fashion from time to time. My e-mail is open to both of you since the first day. But you rebember that I told you I was very busy lately. I wished I assisted to the festival as well but failed for the same reasons. I listened to both of you for almost three years and you know that you both deserve a topic ban. You both are here for a reason other than writing an encyclopedia. You are both here to represent your interests (music producing, festivals, copyright, legal issues, etc...) Your lawyer edited for a long time before being detected. Misplaced Pages should be filled with reliable independent references and sources. It is great to hear that you have started to use them. I told you both that jajouka.net and joujouka.net are prohibited here (all agreed, right?). So why are you still using it to advertise your festival? But, it is great again to see parties using reliable sources though I'd not dismiss your relationship with the Irish media. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Pico and I have been in touch before and need no intercessions. He/She is a fine editorOpiumjones 23 (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, S/He is a fine editor. No doubt about that. I have nothing against PiCo's general edits. S/He's been around for a long time and I respect their dedication and all their contributions to the encyclopedia. As Gyrofrog states above, PiCo is not a single-purpose account at all and I personally believe they got no interest in all this. But if you have been in touch before and need no intercessions with PiCo then my opinion on PiCo involvment in this has to be reviewed. I'll assume good faith as usual but if PiCo jumps to the rest of the articles then I'd understand that as a kind of meatpuppetry. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Blatent clear agenda You are correct re Paul Bowles but that agenda was to return the page to factual accuracy and remove inaccurate and blatantly incorrect info of the User you are dealing with by email. We both knew Bowles, BKL also knew, and has been involved in the personal and professional life of several other article subjects. You know this already. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it is one of your friends (a journalist) who met Bowles for an interview. You have a clear and official interest in having "Bowles loved boys and men" inside the article. By saying and insisting on the specific wording (you could bring an independent reliable secondary source or use a specific citation) you make it clear that you are here for a specific reason. So that is blatant, Frank. This has been going for more than 3 years. You have been both officially topic banned before being blocked. You are both guilty of using Misplaced Pages to protect or/and promote your real-life interests... So whatever argument you'd use here is useless. Neither you nor BKLisenbee would bring us something new. Don't forget that Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth. I will be having a general review for all these articles and invite all editors and admins to assist me. Both your points will be taken into consideration and sorted out one by one. That has been the reason behind the topic ban. Nothing changed. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Really you are getting very one sided info. 1/ Festival a clear sucess with full co operation of village council, co-operative, Caid and government of Larache.

How can you claim filming in Sidi Ahmed Schiech was unauthorised other than quoting User BKL who was not there. Fully authorised by Moroccan government permits and the village council and Caid at Tatoft!!!! Sorry to disappoint you all crosses crossed and i's dotted there. How can you make such a statement here and claim a semblance of neutrality? The festival was attended by a host of independent media their reports will follow soon. I will address you by email re this. But I think you have been feeding from a fountain of angry lies. Re: Bowles the above book says enough and is a good source, really I could care less except for post mortem hypocrisy of his friends which only barely surpasses Paul's own. The facts are all there in the secondary printed sources that keep getting pulled from the page as User Pico states.

What about other peoples interset in US media Plus I have NO financial interest in Joujouka/Jajouka they are people who need charity/as they are poor and mistreated people. Dont further that mis treatment by siding with cranks and oppressors Seek the truth it is there in the secondary sources Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2008

¨Plus saints preserve us just as User:BKLisenbee gets blocked User:Emerman makes his first edits in a year. You will recall he /she stopped editing when you treatened check user . And speaking of names see I think that you better check use and also block before that user gets off the groundOpiumjones 23 (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Opiumjones 23, this is Misplaced Pages. A neutral encyclopedia. We are not supposed to use the arguments such as "charity" and "poor". I don't care about your real-life activities (both of you). I wish there has been no dispute. But I care about what happens here. And you have been told many times that user:Emerman is not user:BKLisenbee. You whether stop that or go for a RfCU otherwise you'd be blocked for harassment. user:PiCo talks about one (1) article and as it known we are dealing for 3 whole years with a dozen of ones. So please leave PiCo out of your dispute. You have never questioned my neutrality in all and we had reached agreements which you disrespected (your interview link for the jajouka/joujouka article?) What I am saying here is that you are both blatantly guilty and you are both topic banned. BKLisenbee is blocked indef for using IPs and his account to edit during the ban. You are not blocked indef because you didn't violate your topic ban. You remain topic banned and I don't see why your points should be listened to here and not his ones. End of story. -- -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wakah I remain silent Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. Now, please send me by e-mail all your concerns (like main points of disputes). I won't listen/accept your real-life disputes (following each other on internet and other mutual claims and accusations). Only concerns related to Misplaced Pages editing. I'll post both your concerns at FayssalF/JK (to organize myself better and have a central place for other wikipedians to join) and start working from there. All articles are in a messy state (violations of many policies and including BLPs) and need a firm attention. Any other editor or admin is welcome except you (topic banned), BKLisenbee (blocked indef). -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please watchlist a discussion at Talk:John Howard

This has been a long drawn out discussion, with a few back and forths of the ad hominem nature, however, User:Skyring, who has dished a few personal attacks out on the page, and acted generally poorly regarding own and talk, in his latest act has overstepped the mark in my opinion. In response to his post here, I made this request that he clarify the meaning of the last part or strike it out, as another veiled personal attack on his opponents in general. His chosen reply was not to do either, but to bold the text instead. I think this is a clear indication that this user has no respect for anybody on that page that does not agree with the consensus he thinks is present and is enforcing, whereas incidentally by this survey there is clearly none to enforce. I would have warned first before coming here, but the nature of the response and his talk page/other actions in general make me think that would be a waste of my time. I will of course notify him of this request though. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional instances: here he calls an user User:Matilda's contribution "farce" and here he gives wikilink to make a point against me. Though it may not be a serious breach of WP:TALK guidelines, it does not help much in a tensely debated talk page. Docku 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a neutral admin mark this resolved with nothing for admins to do. MickMacNee has been strongly pushing a POV which is unsustainable on the sources on the article, together with one or two other editors. Skyring, who I don't usually find myself defending, has been defending NPOV and RS on that article. Orderinchaos 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I would like to support User:Skyring in this instance. He is merely responding to strong POV from MickMacNee. User:Matilda's actions in this edit war have been uncharacteristically dubious. --Surturz (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure. The issue is not yet resolved. So, we still dont know who is pushing for POV. Anybody who make a decision should do so after reading the talk page in detail. In my feeling, we are about to rech a consensus. Finally even if one assumes MickMacNee is pushing for POV, it does not justify personal attacks. Docku 01:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an admin noticeboard. Things are posted here if there is something that admins are needed to do. In this case, it's a petty content dispute on a talk page. Orderinchaos 02:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would really appreciate the views of non-involved (and probably non Australian) admins. I note quite a few people (not just Surturz) have referred to my actions in this edit war have been uncharacteristically dubious (actually the uncharacteristically is an uncharacteristic positive touch :-) ). I would observe however that Orderinchaos is an involved admin/editor in this case. I think it inappropriate that he call for a neutral admin mark this resolved with nothing for admins to do. --Matilda 02:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If I was trying to imply I was neutral, I would have closed it myself. Matilda's own actions in adding a policy-violating piece of text to a high-visibility article with an already problematic editing environment, then edit warring over it, then reporting her opponents for a block - all of which has created major drama and managed to unite large sections of the two usually opposing factions on the article against such inexplicable behaviour, have (and I note somewhat sadly) significantly reduced my opinion of someone who I have historically held in very high esteem indeed. I am disappointed to have to criticise her in a public place, especially since I suggested to an RfC on the topic recently that no further censure of her actions was required or helpful, but her sheer persistence and her refusal to accept she was wrong and her support of pure trolls on the article talk page makes it necessary. Orderinchaos 02:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not yet decided whether the text violates any policy. We are currently working on a non-violating text. User:Orderinchaos has stated himself that it is not a violation of BLP issue. You can see that here. I accidentally entered the article and was appalled by how badly some editors including Matilda were treated. You could see the evidences above. The issues are being discussed in detail in the talk page and we are about to reach a consensus. We are trying to reach consensus edit which does not violate any[REDACTED] policy. I really support Matilda's idea of a non-Australian editor. Docku 02:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I never suggested this particular text violated BLP. Please stop wikilawyering. Orderinchaos 02:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Then, what is the problem if Matilda says the same? How do you justify personal attacks against her and other editors? I will wait for a neutral admin. Docku 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not personally attacked anyone. I think sometimes AGF is misunderstood - it certainly does not mean we are not allowed to call people out when they act against the interests of the encyclopaedia (whether that be their intention or not) - at the end of the day we are expected at all times to do whatever it takes to improve the encyclopaedia. Otherwise we would never be able to block vandals because we would be accused of not be assuming good faith of them. Another very good example is conflict of interest, where we basically say that someone is either unable or severely limited in their ability to approach the topic or edit with the detachment required by an academically rigorous process, due to either an investment in the topic or a strong ideological commitment to a particular point of view. Orderinchaos 03:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think what might be best is to put this page under community probation. The poor behaviour on that page has been going on for way too long and creeps out onto other pages and it's just too time-consuming for the community to constantly have to deal with these disputes which are always basically the same just over different content. Despite warnings and various users being blocked over the last year the page has not improved but rather got worse if anything. I tried previously to help on this page as an administrator but I gave up like most others due to the never ending partisan POV-pushing and disgraceful behaviour all round. So I have not been involved with these content disputes but I have been watching it and unfortunately I share Orderinchaos's concerns about some of Matilda's actions on this page. In addition to what OIC has outlined, in a blatant conflict of interest, Matilda blocked an alternate account being being used to write an RFC about herself, rather than reporting it and allowing another administrator to do it for her. I have a lot of respect for Matilda but I am quite concerned that she has become so involved that she has compromised herself and should not be using her tools at all in regard to this page or any of these users. I am also concerned about the general activities going on on the John Howard page and I really think it's time to do what some of us have been discussing for some time now and either take it to arbitration or put it under community sanctions. Sarah 03:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah: You may be right. I dont know about Matilda's past actions. But as of now, I couldnt find anything disputable. Therefore, as an editor already involved in the article and as an Australian, I guess you shouldnt have commented. Your comment will now prevent other uninvolved administrators from commenting because they might not want to differ with you. This is despite the plea she made for a non-Australian admin. I am quite disappointed. But, what is your opinion on the personal attacks anyway. I guess no action good or bad should justify personal attacks? Docku 04:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The personal attacks are not confined to one direction or one person. I largely agree with Barneca's comment on his/her talk page. Orderinchaos 04:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved with the article. I haven't touched the article since early December last year and I haven't touched the article's talk page for months. I am not and have not been involved in any of these content disputes. I am only aware of what has been happening because of various complaints made to this noticeboard and ANI and other pages on my watchlist. Other administrators will feel free to comment as they so desire and if they don't feel they can comment because I have commented then they shouldn't be administrators. Anyone can comment, including Australians. Sarah 04:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sarah for assuming you were involved. My sincere apologies.Docku 04:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no conflict of interest in my case. I am not from Australia and I dont live there and I dont belong to any parties in Australia. Maybe it will be helpful if the ones who belong to parties stay away due to WP:COI. Docku 03:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with people from parties editing so long as they edit encyclopaedically. As I told a newspaper a few weeks ago when they asked me, we view editing as the problem, not editors - although inevitably, some editors will be more problematic than others, but in terms of who they are in the real world, we're not terribly particular as long as they edit appropriately. This particular issue, as an aside, actually has very little to do with party politics in Australia, as supporters of all four major parties on the article have opposed its inclusion, and as the media isn't talking about it (given that it's only of marginal activist interest) comments from Labor and Liberal identities are not to be found anywhere. Orderinchaos 03:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am impressed to know that you know who belongs to which party. I would be curious to know if there is no privacy issues. I however cant hide my surprise to learn that[REDACTED] is really politicised. Again, editors oppose the edit as it was initially suggested to be included. Let me be honest with you, I have no confidence whatsoever that the edit will get the consensus as it was initially included. Well, Isnt that why we are trying to get a consensus edit which everyone will approve of! I hope you have no problem in doing that. Docku 03:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

One year and more of ongoing disputes on that article tends to bring out who follows which, also some state it openly on their userpages/userboxes. I originally entered the situation as an uninvolved administrator, but noone ends up uninvolved there for long. Also, David Hicks (an article subject to similar levels of intense dispute over a prolonged period, with many of the same people involved) and John Howard disputes tend to interplay into each other - it's the Australian politics project's only serious problem area - most are ignored for the most part, such as the Western Australian political topics I'm trying to whip into shape before the coming election which just got announced yesterday for a month's time, including eliminating copyvio in over 50 articles. My attitude to this dispute is - I am not going to forego Misplaced Pages policies just to keep someone happy. We are not going to add crap to articles. If, however, something is reliably sourced and does not require any synthesis, then I will support it so long as it does not distort the article (which is already doing things that would be beyond most gymnasts as it is). Orderinchaos 03:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Docku, I don't mean to be rude at all and you're welcome to discuss partisanship and such with orderinchaos on your talk page but can I ask that you post elsewhere about anything that does not require administrative attention. By filling up this section you are making it increasingly unlikely that uninvolved administrators will be willing to wade through all this and then investigate the opening complaint. Sarah 04:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest it myself. Somehow got lost in discussion. Need to sleep anyway. I hope you will remind Orderinchaos as well.:) Docku 04:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please watchlist a discussion at Talk:John Howard : reply from Matilda

As my name has been mentioned several times above in this discussion I have chosen to respond. The article talk page has a current RfC which mainly deals with my conduct. I think calling for uninvolved admins has merit - particularly because there are significant wikiquette issues on that page.

I made no admin actions in relation to Skyring and the edits at John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that I am aware of, other than the blocks of no longer necessary (in his view and my view) sockpuppet accounts which I discuss further below. I reported Skyring for 3RR reversion - I did not block - I am not sure why my report is considered inappropriate I have stated elsewhere I will report any violation of 3RR promptly - and have done so in the past. I am also not sure why I am being judged for Ed Johnston's decision (not in this thread but elsewhere) - his decision not mine and I don't believe I mislead him with any information in my report.

Gnangarra and others object to my two times reversion of Skyring and it has been alleged that I "goaded" Skyring into a 3RR breach. Firstly they (OiC and Gnangarra) have very strongly failed to assume good faith - I will assert again that I had no intention of goading Skyring. Gnangarra seeks to for all to abide by WP:1RR - in particular in relation to the John Howard article. While I think the idea has merit - he spoke to me about that after my two time reversion and I was operating on <3RR - I don't see two times reversion as edit warring - I am not trying to be a wikilawyer - that is what the policy says and to assert otherwise as Skyring (supported by OiC, Gnangarra and others) is not in my view justified.

I observed Skyring was using sock puppets to disguise his editing. I raised the matter with him - as I see it I had a legitimate interest in seeing whether he was drafting his RfC (and to call that interest stalking is in my view inappropriate) but in fact I didn't search for it, I found his editing quite by accident and it gave me a very nasty turn to find my username linked to his sandbox when I knew he hadn't edited there in the last week or so. He responded - not in my view satisfactorily - but I left him to it. Once he had completed the RfC I tagged the accounts as sockpuppets - he has used sockpuppets quite frequently in the apst and they have not under any circumstances been regarded as compliant with policy. I noted the tag said "and blocked indefinitely" and I blocked them. I did not escalate to an uninvolved admin as I did not wish to escalate the issue at all. Inadvertently on my part the autoblock function blocked one of the IP addresses he used - but not the other. Skyring raised the matter at WP:ANI. I note that others thought the sockpuppetry on Skyring's part was not a breach of policy - though I cannot see the allowance of it at WP:Sock. Moreover the admin who made that comment said to Skyring I don't think the accounts violated policy, but I meant what I said on the ANI thread; I think it would have been wiser not to have created them, due to your past issues. I noted also advice from Shotinfo Matilda, in all honesty, you should have taken this to AN/I to have an uninvolved admin act on the information rather than unilaterally act on it yourself. . Sarah said at ANI (and I didn't see until today because her comment was more than 10 hours after I had left my comment) Matilda, can I suggest that perhaps it might be best to ask someone else to block the accounts in this sort of situation in future? You blocking an account being used to build an RFC against yourself could be seen to be a tremendous COI and thus a misuse of the tools. She has reiterated that statement in this thread again above, and it is in part in reponse to her that I have decided to reply here. As far as I was concerned the account was no longer in use as the RfC had been lodged. Skyring had been warned that I regarded his account as an illegitimate sockpuppet account and as far as I understand he had no difficulty with the block, merely the inadvertant and unintended consequences of the block. I had chosen not to report him for sockpuppetry - after all the message I received was reporting Skyring was not OK - as I saw it at the time I was damned if I did and damned if I didn't. I note and will follow in future the advice to the contrary.

I am very concerned that Orderinchaos repeatedly suggests (including suggesting in this discussion) that editors not previously involved should not / need not be participating in the discussion , or those that are recently arrived have some improper motive - I disagree strongly that limiting the number of editors involved will help. Specifically outside editors have in effect been invited to the page and to give their views by the BLP notice and the RfC.

Misplaced Pages:Administrators states while correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct is considered very important, the title of "administrator" is not a big deal . Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Administrator conduct gives some quite specific guidelines - including the prefacing caveat Administrators, like all users, are not perfect beings. However, in general, they are role models within the community, and must have a good general standard of civility, fairness, and general conduct both to users and in content matters . The RfC on Talk:John Howard raised by Skyring is allegedly about policy - in reality it is about my conduct. Gnangarra and Orderinchaos by endorsing Skyring's RfC have called into question my conduct as an admin - and moreover they have done so elsewhere (for example OIC has repeated that assertion in this discussion above).

At Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Assistance for administrators being harassed it states In case of problems administrators have the exact same right as any other user to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason ... I thought by taking a wikibreak I would allow the situation to de-escalate - it didn't : - or at least not in a way I found acceptable. Following the advice on WP:Harass , I have emailed OTRS for confidential advice - that email was more than two days ago and as at this morning (in Australia) I had not heard back :-( (Note I only have intermittent access to my email)

In conclusion then - I am seeking advice - I undertake to heed any guidance offered. I would really appreciate univolved non-Australian admins reviewing the situation - there is an outstanding policy RfC to focus on if nothing else and also the article has been raised at the BLP noticeboard. Why non-Australian - because the Australians have all worked with all of us before and have been watching and therefore do not come without prejudice notwithstanding their lack of editing of the article or on the talk page. I am looking for somebody who has not looked at it before to come and see.

Just for the record I have no political allegiance (Orderinchaos infers above that many regular editors on the page do but does not clarify who and what allegiance). --Matilda 07:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've been named above - I don't need to clarify who has what allegiances, as firstly it's well known amongst the editors on that page (and FTR I never suggested you had one), secondly just because I know doesn't necessarily mean they want me to spill it all over the page in one place, and thirdly it may just fuel the trolling which is taking place there right now. I have no problem with your conduct generally - like I've said on at least three occasions now, I think you're one of the better admins on the Australian project, and it saddens me to end up on the other side from you, but your actions and choices have left me with no choice. Thirdly, as an admin I have a duty, as do all admins, of upholding and enforcing policy. When a group of clearly organised editors arrive on the page out of nowhere on the day a dispute arises which did not arise by natural means on the page, and engage in far-left activism, and on investigating a couple of the editors I find serious problems with their history which I have had to make other admins aware of (anyone who wants to know more about that is free to contact me for details), I would not be doing my job if I did not oppose it in the strongest terms and stick up for core Misplaced Pages policy. Orderinchaos 07:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Orderinchaos, if you are talking about my history being questionable. I would like to have a copy of the report you are willing to share with anyone? Docku 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where these clearly organised editors have arrived from - I did not solicit their presence, I am unaware of any problems with them and I have taken their comments and conduct at face value - I have not investigated further. I believe it has confused the talk page discussion that OiC has had those discussions with them on that page (at least in part)instead of on their respective talk pages. If the article talk page focussed lss on conduct and more on content we would be much better off.
A user has made a suggestion concerning formatting of comments on the talk page (opt in) which I thought was very useful - unfortunately using <small>...</small> tags makes it unreadable for some so that bright idea will have to be reconfigured somehow. The principle however of concentrating on content not conduct would limit the personal attacks, whether real or perceived and probably lead to faster article improvement.--Matilda 07:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem we have is noone there is actually looking to improve the article. The vast majority of editors are protecting it from one incidence of irresponsible conduct after another, which does not promote improvement as it reinforces a current deficient form of it simply because it does not contain the relevant addition, and of course the users engaging in that conduct are not at all interested in the article and more whatever trivial point or grievance they wish to have aired within it. In the end it's the article that suffers, not whichever side loses. This has been going on for more than a year, I even wrote an essay about it a month or so ago but haven't had time to post it in my userspace yet. Orderinchaos 10:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I came to the article after adding the 9/11 evac section, thuis putting it on my watchlist, where I watched this edit war unfold with some dodgy reasoning being made to justify removal of sourced content. If orderinchaos wants to use that fact as a reason to make all sorts of accusations and insinuations about me because of it, well he clearly will. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Matilda, I'm not sure what you're looking for at OTRS as I haven't looked up your email, but OTRS generally does not get involved in on-Wiki content disputes, instead referring users back to traditional dispute resolution and it is likely for this reason that you have not yet had a reply. Further, you should probably be aware that OIC, Gnangarra, myself, and many other Australians are on the OTRS team. Sarah 08:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I would expect that Australians would proabably recognise my email address and would stay away. At Misplaced Pages:Harass#Assistance_for_administrators_being_harassed it states contact the Arbitration Committee or OTRS if needed. I chose to do that and am disappointed not to have had the support I was seeking, notwithstanding I acknowledge the support is given by volunteers who are not obliged to do anything. --Matilda 08:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It just seemed fair and right to tell you that we work there. Sarah 08:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be obtuse so apologies if it seems that way, but can I ask who is harassing you and where? With regards to the RFC you mentioned in the above extended statement, I don't think the RFC really belongs there on the John Howard talk page. The stuff about you should be moved to user conduct RFC or a user talk page or someplace but the issue of content is okay there. I'm assuming Peter posted it though because you kept asking him to do so. I didn't really get the impression it was something he was otherwise all that keen on doing. Sarah 10:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• response to Matilda since I have been specifically mentioned, in endorsing the RFC I said that I endorse Skyrings reasonings as laid out, the BLP issues are justified and his action were within the guidelines of BLP. The admin that blocked him for 24 hours should have applied that to all edit warring parties equally...Matilda as an admin should never have reverted Skyring twice she has experience(community trust) to realise that it was inflamming the situation. The correct course of action would have been to request the article be protected until the issue was resolved on the talk page, WP:RFPP not WP:3RR.diff. After the block occurred I contacted Matilda directly via email and made some comments there over her actions as an editor, noting that as "an admin with her experience" she should have realised that her actions in reverting were inflamming the situation. A couple of days later I was also approached on my talk to comment about two edits made by Skyring and explain BLP and UNDUE concerns, one I was asked if it was a PA the other whether it was inline with WP:TALK. In response to the PA I said I presume your talking about the specific comment on Matilda's editing(Matilda has made herself scarce, so there's probably little point pursuing her for starting and mismanaging this farce.), in short that to me wasnt a personal attack its more an olive branch to move the discussion along. Matilda did make a couple of questionable admin actions in relation to Skyring these should have been left to outside parties to addressdiff the action was in relation to the blocking of the alternative account and calling it a sock, again the action wasnt helping to defuse the situation.
  The discussion has since moved on the original text and source that was the point contention are not being used because of the BLP/UNDUE concerns raised. As I said when endorsing the RFC I think the best result for the article is for all editors to be restricted to 1R for 12 months, which is the normal ARBCOM ruling for similar contentious subjects. Gnangarra 13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support 1RR and a civility parole. Something like the Obama probation would probably be very helpful. Sarah 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I support Sarah's suggestion wholeheartedly. Docku 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary I agree that Matilda should not have unilaterally blocked the sockpuppets of User:Skyring but rather sought the advice of some uninvolved editors. Everyone makes mistakes and I am sure every wikipedian here must have made some type of mistake at some point of time during their[REDACTED] career, it is only natural as human beings. I guess Matilda was reminded of her actions and to refer to that one instance over and over again and blow it out of proportions only embarass her and is not going to be helpful. I feel like she is being pushed to the wall and we all know that people have difficulty responding positively when they feel that way. We all need to forget the past, forgive her and move on. Now, none of Matilda's past actions justify any of the personal attacks by anyone and therefore I hope some neutral administrator (preferably a non-Australian as Matilda requested) will look at the personal attack complaint noted in the first paragraph in this thread and will respond in an appropriate way. Thanks. Docku 15:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

While personal attacks are never justified, reasonable questioning of actions is expected and not to be discouraged at all. It's only in questioning actions that in some cases one becomes aware that what one has done is not in accordance with community norms. As an administrator of 17 months standing myself, I've been questioned plenty of times, and on some of those occasions have realised from the vantage point of what amounts to a third opinion that I was wrong and conceded or made some effort to rectify my actions. In my opinion, wantonly lighting a fire in a flammable area then denying all responsibility while the inferno burns is very serious behaviour, and so out of character in my long experience of the individual's behaviour that, as I said to one of their uninvolved supporters by email, I really hope this proves to be an isolated incident. Orderinchaos 20:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Response from Skyring

I'll endorse the charges of trolling already raised. This incident has long since consumed more space and more words and more individuals than the whole of the world's media devoted to it. Consensus amongst long-standing editors on the page was quickly found, which, considering the often long and heated disagreements in the past is truly remarkable. I think admin Matilda made some serious errors, not least edit-warring over contentious material after a WP:BLP notification had been raised with discussion ongoing. The effect of her actions, beginning with adding the contentious material, has been continued disruption. Over recent days trolling from previously unheard-of editors, including the raising of this section, has been blatant. There was never a consensus for inclusion, and the continued wikilawyering and petty personal attacks did nothing to generate any move in that direction.

I'd be interested to see some high-level scrutiny on this incident. I'll add my voice to others calling for some change to the way things are done in Australian political articles. 1RR limits will help, but they won't be needed if we can enforce a policy of requiring consensus for inclusion of contentious material.

As for me, I know I've got a history of being snarky and snakey when attacked, but I've pulled my fingers back from the keyboard dozens of times over the past few days. Not wanting to feed the trolls. --Pete (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a demonstration of what we are talking about. When you say you resisted feeding the trolls, you intend to mean that someone was trolling. As far as I remember, I was one of the persons involved in talk page discussion in the past few days and that makes me assume that you call me a troll. Anybody who can have a cursory look at the talk page can find out that I am trying to get a consensus. In fact I am very happy that both Orderinchaos and Surtuz have agreed that including Mahathir's comments are acceptable to them. You can see that here and here. While I am genuinely trying to get a consensus, calling me a troll is not helpful. Docku 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To reply specificaly to this post from Skring,

"I'll endorse the charges of trolling already raised. This incident has long since consumed more space and more words and more individuals than the whole of the world's media devoted to it." - i.e. others are not listening to your political viewpoint that the contested edit is a political stunt from Howrad's enemies, and as such should not be allowed in the article. End of discussion apparently.

"Consensus amongst long-standing editors on the page was quickly found, which, considering the often long and heated disagreements in the past is truly remarkable." - i.e. agreement was reached by less than 5 editors, who by virtue of having had disputes between themselves in the past, and being 'regulars' on the article, their decision trumps any other 'new' (i.e. automatically suspicious) opinion. There was a quite irrevelant discussion about everbody's stated political affiliation and comments over external factors and who thought what about Howard/the action group in question, but frankly, precious little attempt to defend the other side as the recognised way to test their reasoning about the specific text with regards neutrality, objectivity, relevance and meeting BLP,RS etc.

"I think admin Matilda made some serious errors" - and you have not let up on the personal attacks against her to show it, in addition to launch what was supposed to be a content Rfc but was essentially, a user Rfc, placed on an article talk page (that everyone had to suspend discussion to wait for you while it was prepared offline in your own time)

"not least edit-warring over contentious material after a WP:BLP notification had been raised with discussion ongoing." A BLP notification at which you persistently ignored repeated posts that is was not a BLP issue subject to ignoring 3RR. You were subsequently blocked.

"The effect of her actions, beginning with adding the contentious material, has been continued disruption." - discussion is not disruption. Asking you to stop personal attacks is not disruption. Talking on the talk page after the issue is resolved in your miond is not disruption.

"Over recent days trolling from previously unheard-of editors, including the raising of this section, has been blatant." - as has your personal attacks and insinuations against them. With your posts you are attemtping to deter new editors by owning the article.

"There was never a consensus for inclusion, and the continued wikilawyering and petty personal attacks did nothing to generate any move in that direction." - Your continued statement of having consensus is untrue, see the survey (currently 4-5 in your favour). This is not consensus. Your only response to this was to attack the taking of a survey, and repeat that there is consensus.

"I'd be interested to see some high-level scrutiny on this incident. I'll add my voice to others calling for some change to the way things are done in Australian political articles. 1RR limits will help, but they won't be needed if we can enforce a policy of requiring consensus for inclusion of contentious material." - Your suggestion of 1RR was almost universally rejected, showing just how far out your assesment of the situation is.

"As for me, I know I've got a history of being snarky and snakey when attacked, but I've pulled my fingers back from the keyboard dozens of times over the past few days. Not wanting to feed the trolls." - there does seem to be a background issue with australian articles affecting your conduct at this article, frankly, that's no excuse, and of no interest to the people on that page. (until you use it as a blanket justification to act as described in the original complaint here) MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean? misrepresentation the whole way, in the hopes that I or someone else will bite. I don't know how my accurate comments that "there was never a consensus for inclusion" could genuinely be understood to read "your continued statement of having consensus is untrue". Ooops. I bit. --Pete (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you just not count or not read? Is this the basic problem here? MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking further at the comments above, I find that I am continually misrepresented. For example, I am accused of calling User:Matilda's contribution "farce". The link given shows nothing of the sort. I said "Matilda has made herself scarce, so there's probably little point pursuing her for starting and mismanaging this farce." This whole thing is a farce, a battle over trivia, and I hope that I am not alone in wishing that the admins involved could have worked together to find an earlier and more satisfactory solution. --Pete (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopaedia. When editors do not tell the truth, and then fail to acknowledge this when it is pointed out in a remarkably public arena, I wonder just how suited they are for this project. Do we want to give our readers useful information? Or untruths, evasions and waffle? --Pete (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

More personal attacks, but without the bravery to name who is being attacked. You want to give readers the information you agree with, nothing more, nothing less. This is useful information: legal papers re. Howard were filed to the ICC<reliable source> Here is an untruth: There exists consensus/this is a BLP issue/the inclusionists are cranks/a cabal/there is support for 1RR/I am the only one who is being constructive here/there is nobody in the world that has called Howard a war criminal. Here is an evasion: I am going to write an article Rfc on the material which will show the source to be unreliable (followed by a user Rfc which shows nothing of the sort mixed with more personal attacks) / we can't allow material that calls Howard a war criminal / we can't accuse Australian soldiers of being rapists / if xyz happens then it can be added / we didn't write about xyz so this shouldn't be included etc etc etc. MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The ICC is not being cited as a source, as their site contains no information about this claim (or the other two allegedly made against the Australian government over the last two years). Orderinchaos 01:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the original issue

I don't think this was a particularly edifying spectacle on the part of any of the editors involved - nothing below (either by myself or others) adds anything to the debate or gets us anywhere closer to resolving the issues which exist, and merely serves to reinforce existing divisions. As one of the parties is presently unable to respond, it seems this would be a good time to end it and let it go to the archives. Orderinchaos 13:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Just to get back on track, as there have been no admins looking at the page in question, can we be clear then that nobody thinks Skyring has done anything wrong per the original post? Is what he did the recognised standard on this article?

Now for the rest of this post, other comments from today. To quote the involved Surturz above - "He is merely responding to strong POV from (me)". Well, for one, that's no excuse, for two, where is my POV, three, Skyring argues exclusively from POV about what should be in the article based on what he thinks of editors/outside groups/his political view of Howard/opponents of Howard. He has barely assessed the specific disputed text at all wrt to policy when compared to his POV commentary. He also repeatedly insisted on calling it a BLP violation despite others disagreeing many times, sheer willfull ignorance.

Orderinchaos is now making repeated assertions that somehow this article is offlimits to anyone but the regulars, how he doesn't see that as wrong I don't know. He, and Skyring, are making insinuations about other editors. Skyring is insisting here he is enforcing consensus, well he clearly can't count the results of the survey (or as per Orderinchaos, is discounting the non-regulars).

Orderinchaos is also even disparaging the taking of the survey, calling it unnecessary because the regulars know the deal, or newcomers can see the situation from the (massive) talk page. As per Skyring, he is either ignoring or miscounting the survey. He has even basically said, the people on the one side know policy, the other side don't. He also stated there has been multiple poll taking in the discussion, therefore it is disruption, (not true - he can point out any other attempt on the page if he likes). None of this behaviour is a content dispute as Order is suggesting, and none of it is justified because Skyring gets angry when he doesn't get his preferred version of articles preserved. MickMacNee (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never argued that it is off limits to anyone but the regulars. I have opposed a particular phenomenon where a group of previously uninvolved people show up at an article within a day or so of each other without any interest in its development but simply to make a point. This is an in-principle violation of consensus and really rankles with me for the primary reason that it is not behaviour which is in any way designed to produce an encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view. The careful avoidance of reliable sources, and the hysterical reactions of those involved when asked to provide them (which proves that the addition is based purely on an appeal to emotion and not reason), confirm my belief that this is a campaign rather than anything in good faith. Theoretically, it would be possible to ram-raid a whole stack of articles in succession pushing an extreme left, or extreme right, or a particular philosophical point of view. It's been done before. Thankfully, most of the editors on that occasion about a year and a half ago are banned now... they caused an awful lot of disruption and drove a lot of very good editors off the encyclopaedia during their reign of terror though. When one reads ArbCom proceedings regularly enough one sees that it's not a phenomenon limited to Australian politics articles, and can theoretically occur anywhere where there could be advantage in pushing particular ideological, religious or nationalist barrows - the names change, but the game is very much the same. As for your "survey", that in itself was a blatant and wilful violation of WP:GAME itself in my opinion, as the positions were already very clear, and polling is not a substitute for discussion as you well know. Orderinchaos 20:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You haven't said anything new here, just reinforced your bang out of order views. You are labeling me a left wing campaigner because of what has happened on the article previously, which has nothing at all to do with me. This is a clear souring of the discussion, it seems you simply cannot accept that a new editor could come to that discussion and disagree with your group of regulars who think being pally with each other despite having differences absolves you from the most basic behavioural and procedural undertakings. Face it, you are owning the article. If you have evidence of any hysterical views from me in the discussion, be my guest and substantiate (as requested from the regulars many times when handing out accusations). Similarly, if you wish to explain how the consensus in a talk discussion with going on 30 discrete headers is "clear to anyone", and that the starting of the first and only attempt to survey it is "a blatant and wilful violation of WP:GAME". Your poisoning of the discussion and the editors who disagree with you based on your previous experiences is frankly disgusting, and certainly not becoming of an admin. If this is how you act in all Australian politics articles it is no wonder that people feel justified in acting badly, you are hardly setting any kind of example. Why don't you just drop any pretence that you are acting in good faith, and that you have any intention of engaging on that talk page with the editors who clearly disagree with your removal of a sourced piece of information, and have not done anything except say why they disagree. The way you talk about neutral point of view just takes the biscuit, given the numerous political POV assertions made that have absolutely nothing to do with the disputed text. It is yourself that are turning that page into a politiclal blog rather than a discussion about how to improve the article with a neutral and sourced piece of information, or with arguments as to why it is not to be included. If you are so sure of your interpretation of policy, why have you not sought third opinons, why are you so unwilling to mediate, why are you doing anything and everything to distract the discussion from discussing the actual text and its merits/faults. In fact, why don't you just open a checkuser case for the four of us who are clearly in league as part of a leftist campaign to wage war against your five editors who are the only editors who are right, because well, you own the article, you've been through bad experiences before, you like each other, we are mad, yader yader yader. MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing I do have to thank you guys for, you know - you've made the administrators' job in the future a lot easier. There were people on the verge of taking each other to ArbCom with multiple failed RfMs and whatever else, who are politically and in just about every sense divided in a way which has been compounded by repeated conflicts over a long period of time, and your activism has actually united them, some of them for the first time ever. At least one contributor's posts suggest he is almost in disbelief that certain other editors agree with him. As for your rhetorical questions - there is nothing to mediate, there is a behavioural issue. Additionally, you and I both know a checkuser would be meaningless - the users involved are on different continents and I have no doubt they are three different people. I much wish it to be otherwise, so we could clear the non-productive users out (as at least one other has suggested) and maybe have some hope of actually developing the article, something none of you are at all interested in, based on contributions. AGF is often misused to stifle proper and appropriate criticism - the general principle however has a caveat, "one does not need to assume good faith in the face of clear evidence to the contrary". Orderinchaos 21:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Too right behavioural issues, you in one breath claim all opposers are left wing campaigners in league on the article, in the next concede with have nothing to do with each other. Of course you think there is nothing to mediate, because you are blind to the clear oppostion to your view about the text. You know full well that ownership works to exclude as well as include, I don't know why you are being so purposely dumb here (well I do, but it appears no-one here is that bothered to do anything about it). Anyway, your sarcasm and non response to the requests to clarify your bad faith and bad manners accusations and statements speaks volumes. "something none of you are at all interested in". You know what my first edit to the article was, I have had to explicitly tell you under your bad faith accusations, so in response to that comment, your just a basic liar and an obvious troll. MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I didn't "concede" anything of the sort. People are perfectly capable of coordinating without using the same computer - which is all checkuser can verify - we saw that with the CAMERA business a while ago, and have seen it more recently with the Parliamentary matter. There is no "clear opposition", so there's nothing for me to ignore. The fact that such usually persistently opposed editors on the page can agree it should not be included suggests to me that, had the activists not arrived out of nowhere to use the article talk page as a soapbox and a moot court opportunity, this argument would have ended almost two weeks ago with the material not being included. Oh, and on your instigation above - let's look at the history of this. Matilda made her edit at 15:25 on 28 July. At 21:55, Carbonrodney, an editor who had never edited this article before, had only 18 days of active editing history and none of it substantial, with some oddities thrown in, reverted its removal. 23:09, you arrive to add more info to Matilda's edit (keeping in mind this was something which allegedly happened 7 weeks earlier so could not be excused by it being a recent event and various people rushing to update). By 29 July the whole situation, previously calm, is a full-blown edit war between the three of you and the usual editors (which for the record, didn't include me until late on 30 July, when I made my one and only edit to revert while discussion was in progress.) Orderinchaos 08:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think we are in league as per CAMERA, why haven't you got the brass neck to back up your opinions with action, instead of contiunaly slighting editors. It is no wonder the 'regulars' have such a bad attitude problem, if this continual smearing against newcomers to the article is accepted by "admins" like you. I don't give a damn what you think is happening on the article and how you use that to justify your actions, I have given my explanation as to how I got there, so either you prove it or you shut your hole and respect other's right to post on the page. I would prefer you had the deceny to stand for re-election, but that's obviously beyond your comprehension. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I owe you and a few people an apology, not so much for what I have said, but how I have said it. I think I have made the mistake, as we're all prone to do on Wiki, of taking things a bit too personally when people do things that to me are utterly unconscionable. The most obvious course of action is simply to react. A more considered course of action would be simply to deal with the edits and bring in third opinions. As it turns out, a third opinion admin, who has accused myself and most others on the page of "acting like children", which I'll take on the nose, has concluded there is no consensus to add the material, and that as consensus is needed to do so (irrespective of whether it can by policy), the matter is at an end. I think we should abide by that, I certainly intend to.

As for your belief I should resign (irrespective of the fact that I have at no stage at any time in this dispute used the tools which I have been granted, nor do I intend to, as it would be a violation of several policies), I don't think you'd have held that belief several months ago when I stuck out my neck to undo a really bad block on you over the Betacommand business by an involved admin, and had to put up with some really intense questioning on my talk page about it. Some people then were suggesting much the same thing as you are now, but the action taken was in complete violation of our policies and acting in the spirit of them was something very important to me, just as it is today.

I do what I believe to be right, rather than from some set ideological position. That is what the community expects me to do, no more, no less. Personally speaking, I wouldn't be unhappy to see people like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in The Hague answering lots of difficult questions and facing a life sentence, just as those involved in the various Yugoslav wars are today. That is something I might well argue for on a blog. But that isn't a sound academic perspective such as we're expected to adopt here, we're meant to work based on the facts of the case and also from a "big picture" view which emphasises what is important and what is not. I am also a graduate and a second year undergraduate student, I am almost mechanically familiar with the mores and rules of academic editing. And that position, from which the Misplaced Pages policies also emanate, requires us to put our own ideological preferences aside and edit with a neutral point of view. I am also an educator, and I have dealt with students of my own - both young and adult - and for years worked in corporate customer service.

So I have seen a lot in my relatively short life, and I take lessons away from all of it. Anyway, this is going to be my last word on the topic - I realise that I cannot sway you, I'm very unhappy about the manner in which certain users have chosen to further an agenda, but the matter is basically over now and by arguing here all we are doing is furthering drama. I have nothing against you personally. Orderinchaos 18:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

At least an apology at last. Not a lot of good when the behaviour it relates to is long in the past and has meant the discussion went south long ago. The addition of irrelevance about beta isn't appreciated, as again I point out something you should know as an admin, we don't change our actions here based on personal favours, and again that is a worrying aspect of this article, editors letting outside issues between them influence their actions. The current teamwork on an unrelated text is a case in point. The "big picture" approach is being misapplied in this instance as it only seems to apply to a western world view, and the continued justification of edits based on your political beliefs is a) not proveable, b) not relevant to policy, c) not relevant to whether or not the text meets policy. MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's the addition which is not provable, is completely contrary to policy, and the points made with regard to reliable sources, synthesis, original resources, undue weight and etc are *entirely* relevant to the text not meeting policy. Your views about the western world are entirely irrelevant here, policy is pretty straightforward on this one. A saying which comes to mind here is "when in a hole, stop digging", and that would be my advice at this point. Orderinchaos 01:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting question is as to how I can "own" an article that I've repeatedly argued has chronic flaws and practically needs to be rewritten. Ownership, according to WP:OWN, would imply I was "possessive about material" which I have repeatedly alleged to be inferior. It is not the fault of any one person that it is so - it's actually the fact that there's no structure or plan in place for managing additions or content, and that those on the article spend more time fighting over single sentences than taking a big picture view. It's an ongoing and long standing issue at all leader articles on Misplaced Pages - I did a survey of major world leader articles a few months ago to see if I could happen upon a formula which could be used to improve Howard, and Brian Mulroney stood out from those as a passable article, but none of the others I looked at were structurally sound in any sense - even one that had formerly been an FA. Orderinchaos 22:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

God help us. Now we're all being described as "pally". I hope that anyone else who knows the true situation sets down their morning coffee before reading the above. Let my keyboard stand as a warning to my pals. --Pete (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I found it rather amusing too given the history. Orderinchaos 22:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You are wilfully ignoring the consensus process which is taking place in the talk page. Let me make my point clear to you, I am not pushing for an inclusion of anything which is not consensual. I hope you will have this sentence in mind when you seek to form your next sentence. Docku 20:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There are editors who support and and there are some oppose the inclusion of the text. Therefore, there is no consensus. I guess your belief is that the consensus is unachievable. My belief is that it is achievable by taking the process along based on discussion (without name calling) and reach a consensus which may eventually even involve the omission of the contested material (while the supporters are still not so unhappy) or inclusion of a modified text (while the opposers are also not so unhappy). This process can be reached only by good faith and policy oriented discussion and also by making sure that it does not violate any[REDACTED] policy. Do you not agree with me? In fact, I have a feeling that we are slowly edging towards it unless some people object to such a good faith process. Docku 20:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, there is four newcomers who support the content, who cannot justify its inclusion. Consensus opposes its inclusion. I argue it has been achieved and is being gamed by yourself and others. There is no process taking place in the talk page as you suggest. If you disagree, show me the evidence - most of the threads there seem to have died as you guys insist on starting new ones every time you find that everybody disagrees with you. Orderinchaos 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your warped interpretation of the word consensus means only the five people who regularly edit the article are right, against the four who don't. And you claim above to not have a clue how you are owning the article? As for starting a new thread everytime, are we looking at the same page? Skyring started at least ten sections, with just nonsensical titles and containg general ramblings, when he could just as easily have kept them in an existing section. If you honestly think you are the one applying good process here, by your own actions or by the support of Skyring's, then I suggest you reconfirm, your actions are inadequate. You haven't even had the good sense to show exactly how taking a survey was tantamount to the accusation you levelled at me, you have ignored it completely. You are right, you have a lot in common with Skyring, willfull and deliberate ignorance, coupled with extreme bad faith and an attitude problem to those you don't agree with, or failure to even acknolwedge they have even typed anything on a page. MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My "willfull (sic) and deliberate ignorance" does not extend to putting aside our reliable sources guideline or our original research policy. You keep saying five, I count eight, or possibly nine depending on how you interpret the remarks of one of the people involved. Even so, it's not about the numbers of people involved, it's about the strength of their arguments, and even a majority would never be able to make a high-visibility article defy policy. Orderinchaos 23:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Make your mind up, either you want to count editors or you don't. Quite obviously you are going to ignore editors that don't agree with you, that is a given from you by now. If you want to talk strength of argument, then let's discuss the removal of a sourced piece of text based on the editor's belief that the sourced event is not relevant as it has been raised by "cranks". No? I didn't think so. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't reliably sourced. That was the whole problem. Anyway, I think we've taken up quite enough of the long suffering AN readers' time, and should let this drop. Orderinchaos 18:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

ABC is a reliable source. This is not in question and never was in question on the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was in question. I have around about 320 emails in my sent items folder, with around 120 very grateful replies to testify to that. Orderinchaos 01:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I will leave it for others to decide. I am not angry with you like you may be with me. Docku 23:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, and no hard feelings. I get annoyed I think mainly because I spend a lot of time and effort trying to develop Misplaced Pages into something that an educator could actually use rather than something they instruct their students to avoid, which is the case at present. It's the field I work in and I've had many, many conversations with other educators along these lines. My own course books (I'm also a student) have big bolded warnings about using Misplaced Pages for anything, and that's something I'd obviously like to rectify. I suppose as a result I do take some of these issues, which I see as detracting from that aim, a bit more strongly than I otherwise would. Orderinchaos 23:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just concentrate on applying the basic conventions of talk, agf, npa, npov and the rest, before you start editing as if your goal is to single handedly improve[REDACTED] as a reference work. I don't know what texts you read, but the ones I read sure don't exclude information based on the political opinion of the originator, as supported on this page. It was frankly quite amazing to see the argument made that excluding comment from opposition politicians is acceptable on a bio page because "it's a given", as if legal papers about the ICC is as routine as a Sunday paper headline. Simply astounding. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The sole intent of editing should be to improve the encyclopaedia. If not, what else? Orderinchaos 18:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When people are not even subtle in showing that their edots are made based on their political views of irrelevant matters rather than consideration of the content and its merits per policy, then the word "improve" becomes a completely subjective concept. MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How can anything I have said be used to suggest that my political views influence my view of the content? If anything one would think it is almost the other way around. My views as a student, and as someone reasonably well versed in Wiki policy, are far more relevant here to my reasons for opposing the content. The content addition fails on four policy grounds. The saying "strong claims require strong evidence" applies here. We can't even prove from the ICC site that they're not just making the whole thing up. Furthermore, no consensus to add. My red herring alert is going off here, I don't think you're seriously interested in engaging on anything other than your own, rather removed from policy, terms. Orderinchaos 01:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

MOS and company names in all-capital letters

This is a followup subject to the above ABN AMRO naming dispute as the subject is now in the Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (capital letters) under the subject line Companies which officially use all-capital letters in their name. One of my more fanatical adversaries in the naming dispute is User talk:Croctotheface. The following statements are pasted from the above MOS talk page:

Another example is ARCO, an oil company whose name was derived from Atlantic Richfield Company. Please do not start an edit war in the ARCO article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned civility to you before. These kinds of snide remarks do not help anyone. Croctotheface (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone reading this section will note that my above statement about ARCO was a polite plea not to make major changes to the ARCO article which could start an edit war with the ARCO article editors. Croctotheface considered that statement uncivil. I should pass this note along to the administrators. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So I'm doing that. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What action do you want us to take? This is a content dispute. –xeno (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the ABN AMRO content dispute developed into an edit war which developed into a renaming war which led an administrator who's familar with ABN AMRO to protect that article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am with Xenocidic here ... and am not very sure what you are looking for. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just monitor the above MOS capital letters talk page and add your input. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of company names is an interesting issue. US trademarks are forced to upper case by the USPTO, unless you trademark a graphic rather than a name. The Securities and Exchange Commission also converts all company names to upper case. So the only authority for capitalization is the company itself. --John Nagle (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing the Time zone in the timestamp

Good Evening,

I am from the te.wiki. I just noticed that fr.wiki uses the CEST time zone in their timestamp. I was just wondering if it possible for us to use the IST.

Σαι ( Talk) 13:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a matter for the Misplaced Pages administrators. It obviously is possible for the default timezone to be changed -- you'll need to get consensus on te.wikipedia first and then file a bug request at bugzilla. Sam Korn 18:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Reichstag Climbing in Progress

Hi Administrators. Apologies if I have posted this in the wrong place, but I think we may have a case of Reichstag Climbing underway on Hythiam - 2 IP Editors seem to have been going at it hammer and tongs for the last several hours, with interruptions from other editors. The Edit History seems to be getting rather heated, and some pretty strong and incivil comments too in the edit summaries. Can I get some advice as to how to let this proceed, or indeed, whether to let it proceed at all? If so, please advise where to report this. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedied the article under WP:CSD#G15: total trainwreck. Somebody else beat me to downing the worse one of the reichstag climbers; I guess they'll get the other one too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Administrators. Future Perfect has now deleted the offending article stating that "This article is a trainwreck." No more Reichstag Climbing on this one... Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Something related is going on at Terren Peizer, with Inshiningarmor (talk · contribs), TimeForYourRealityCheck (talk · contribs) and some BLP tomfoolery. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of IAR here, I think. I've just been doing some Google research on this company (which I had never heard of), and in my judgement, it is notable enough to deserve an article, which should be written about halfway between what the two writers were trying to do, in a more neutral tone. This went from speedied to actually deleted in about two minutes. Protecting and directing them to the talk page would perhaps have been more appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I partly agree, partly disagree. I certainly agree there could be a legitimate article. But these two guys are not the ones who can write it. Those two were a hopeless pair of COI warriors with dozens of real-life axes to grind, that much was obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Having read the deleted content, I can say yes, it was wholly unhelpful to readers. If someone wants to take the lift, ok, but this was indeed beyond the pale. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

user 82.2.236.210

Hi, user: 82.2.236.210 continues to disrupt categories. He/she has several warnings on his page. Please have him/her blocked out. He is VERY persistent in removing categories. Other users seem fed up with him/her too. It seems that Wikipolicies for dealing with this type of determined user are not working. What can you admins do about this person? It does not seem appropriate to just sit back and let him waste everyone's time. Please block him. Thanks History2007 (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The user seems to have been helpfully removing some redundant categories and doing other cleanup. Do you have any particular diffs of concern? -- zzuuzz 20:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the various comments, please see: User talk:Hersfold. Thanks History2007 (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

See also the successor of this comment: #User_talk:82.111.128.3. Cheers, Face 18:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP seemingly used as a social network

There are a few kids using their Talk pages as MySpace or something similar. They published a Friends list and they talk about stuff in their pages. The main users in question are User talk:SLJCOAAATR 1 and User talk:Super Badnik. Another admin Theresa knott had already talked to them. I saw the behavior and gave them a warning. One of them came back with a bellicose attitude here, daring me to block. Otherwise they seem like harmless kids (even though User talk:SLJCOAAATR 1 has two recent short blocks for personal attacks and edit warring and User talk:Super Badnik one recent for 4RR). They seem to be obsessed with everything about Sonic the Hedgehog characters. Their edits seem OK, not vandalism, therefore I don't want to block but their use of WP as a social network is troublesome. Opinions from other Admins? Am I off-base on this one?, as I prefer not to block. -- Alexf 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that talking to each other on their talk pages is pretty harmless. They are active editors after all so it's not as if they are only using[REDACTED] to network. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The main reason (nah, the only reason) why I did not block outright and came here for opinions instead. Thanks. -- Alexf 21:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not is policy, and while I'm not one who desires community interference in the pages of individual users, such a thing sets a bad example, a bad example which is worse if it is ignored. You're here to edit an encyclopedia, or at the very least manage the editing of an encyclopedia, so these users should have no problem complying with policy here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time I can remember ever disagreeing with Theresa on something like this. Their encyclopedic contributions are way too thin, clearly tokens thrown to uncaring sysops. Moreover, their responses to these worries are snarky, so MySpacey. Safe for MySpace, I've a couple pages there meself. I've blocked both accounts for social networking. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with me. You must Taste the Korn. Let that be a lesson to you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Theresa Knott if you ever tell Angela I've been one of her biggest fans through thick and thin only cuz the keenest of us know she can do no wrong even when she canny botches it I'll crawl into a corner, curl up, weep my heart out in the chavel of my broken dreams and blame you. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this is ant hen-cycle-op-ede-helia, and keep your myTube soshulizing to a minimimiumiumuimum. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think these blocks may have been a little harsh. User:SLJCOAAATR 1 has 730 mainspace edits vs. 646 talk page edits. User:Super Badnik has 212 mainspace to 46 talk page. Hardly "token" editing, and hardly users who are using the site primarily for social networking. Having reviewed a random sampling of mainspace edits from each, there are some contributions that could certainly be categorised as, well, bad, but others that have been perfectly OK. I feel a softer approach may have been warranted on this occasion: a warning, certainly, but also clearer guidance on where they were going wrong and how to contribute more positively. All these blocks will have done is to turn two potential useful contributors away from the project. Is there any chance that the blocking admin could take another look at these blocks? Steve 22:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I was going to block them for the weekend but GG got there first - and indefinite means just that, no determined length of time. Yes, there are valid contributions; but this is a world wide contributor driven encyclopedia and not an excuse to bring a few mates around to buff up the video games articles. The other point is, that one of the participants dared an admin to block them - and again I confess that GG beat me to it! I don't think an attitude of taking it to the edge and seeing who blinks first is an appropriate method of editing WP; if they realise they have gone too far and undertake to edit according to practice and custom then unblocking them is the proper course, but if they don't want to "play" according to the rules then, ultimately, the project is best of without them. Lastly, SLJCOAAATR 1 has been previously blocked - I'm not sure the message is getting through. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as User talk:Super Badnik now has managed to break WP:NLT while blocked, after I offered a second chance, I'm not sure they were here to do good to begin with. MBisanz 22:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

They should stay blocked. Its not like the blocking admin ever chats or jokes with other editors, err, uhhh, scratch that, never mind. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all swayed by original research shreds edited into articles on video games they clearly play day in, night out. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; you took the time to reconsider, and took the time to reply. Thank you. To the others who might read this, I will only say that while SLJCOAAATR_1 responded badly, in a manner that warranted action of some kind, I don't think the initial broaching of the subject here was handled in the best manner. An immediately combative tone, coupled with an immediate threat to block, rather than a helpful explanation of where the editor was going wrong. Other, bona fide excellent contributors with thousands of edits to their names, keep lists on their userpages of editors with whom they have worked (note that SLJCOAAATR names the section "Wiki Friends & Allies In Editing"; far from a real world "friends" list). And many of us do use Misplaced Pages to communicate with other editors with whom we are friendly, on subjects not directly relevant to the improvement of any particular article. Anyway, 'tis done now. I would only urge a calmer approach in future; it might not always work, but it wouldn't harm things to try. All the best, Steve 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to understand the justification behind the indef block of Super Badnik, see here, but have heard nothing so far that seems to justify indef blocking a user who has made constructive edits. There seems to be a mix of MYSPACE/OR reasoning, but nothing that really seems to add up to justification (especially not for an indef block). There seems to be a lot of assumptions ("video games they clearly play day in, day out") but little assumption of good faith. Without stronger justification, in my opinion this block is simply bad and goes against common sense. Why are we alienating a user who has done nothing to actually disrupt Misplaced Pages? Let's not forget that, once the autoblock expires, this user can be back on Misplaced Pages in 24 hours using a different account, and probably not in the mood to be constructive. I would like to see this user unblocked but, as you can see from my first link, the blocking admin is not happy with this. TigerShark (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've just cleared out any items in these user's userspaces (most of which were userboxes only they used or sandboxes that were forks of articles they worked on). And I found these other users who they call "friends":

• Fairfieldfencer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Person373 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (two article edits)
• Sonic&Mario KId (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (one article edit)
• Unknown the Hedgehog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (148 article edits)
• Talon the cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (three article edits)

I'm thinking we should also apply these blocks to the users who I've pointed out the number of edits for.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It may also be worth it to examine the other users involved with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sega/Sonic and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sega/Sonic/Characters.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've not been thrilled about handling this because I can more or less understand where these editors are coming from and they have neither been vandalizing nor causing lots of disruption. However, their use of talk pages tends to stray far from WP:Talk and taken altogether, the contrib histories are very thin. While there are nods to websites, the article edits are short, shallow and mostly original research from playing the games. The worry here is that if there were thousands of SPA accounts like this on en.Misplaced Pages, the servers would be handling mostly chat and images and the bedrock of WP:RS would quickly start growing cracks crevices. Accounts like these have been blocked in the past and I see no reason why we shouldn't be very careful about this kind of editing. I have indef blocked all the above editors but for User:Fairfieldfencer, who is more targeted on meaningful edits in the article space. There are maybe two or three more editors in the WikiProject lists (above) who also have shallow contribs in the article space, but they're a bit less active. I see some good faith lurking about among most of these editors. I'm willing to talk with each of them and reconsider each block, depending on how each editor responds and what they plan to do now. Some of this is clearly owed to a misunderstanding of what Misplaced Pages is for but I'm afraid these blocks have been the only way to get them to take heed. Lastly, a notion has been put forth that we could make "enemies" of these users, who could be back in a day with new accounts as vandals or trolls. Not only do I think this thinking strays from AGF but the truth is, Misplaced Pages is rather fit at handling vandalism and either way, mustn't be held at bay by those kinds of fears. Input on all this is welcome, as ever. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to go through the user space edits of the accounts that you did block.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Especially the blocking of Person and Talon, not to mention the deletion of a WikiProject. Those two are still learning what to do and will become good editors. And the deletion of WikiProject is a terrible thing to do. Would anyone here like it if I deleted WikiProject:Video games? As for them editing video game articles, would like them to edit articles they know nothing about? If users did that there's be misinformation everywhere. Users should stick to editing what they know about. As for the OR, I myself as a Sonic fan, see that as important information to the characters make-up. We're not treating this like Myspace, we're just being friendly. Or would you prefer it if we were unfriendly?Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between being friendly and misusing Misplaced Pages. Person and Talon had more edits to their friend's user pages than to articles. Even after my deletions, they still don't have more edits to articles. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia first and a community second. And if your only contributions to Misplaced Pages are based on your own experiences with a subject, then you are also violating policy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Care to point out how being nice and friendly is misusing Misplaced Pages? And the reason why those two haven't made edits to articles is because they're afraid that they will make mistakes and get blocked. As they are now.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

They have done nothing but make friends. Misplaced Pages is not MySpace, Facebook, Craigslist, etc. Accounts are to be used to improve the encyclopedia. Those that don't improve the encyclopedia (through destructive or simply non-constructive means) get blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Also note that we do not block users because they make common errors in articles (unless these errors constitute the deliberate insertion of disinformation) —Anonymous Dissident 08:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but do they know that? I don't recall anyone telling them that, and I've been wacthing their pages.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would they assume they would get blocked? --Random832 (contribs) 08:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Because they're inexpierienced.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The only error that seems to have been made is perhaps some original research and it is not clear to me that somebody has spoken to the users about it. I am very concerned about this. This seems to have turned into a witch-hunt against users who do have 200+ contributions simply because some people don't like the idea of some social interaction (I don't see people getting blocked for leaving barnstars or "plates of cookies" etc - which seems to be social interaction here). When I raise the concern that we have probably turned good contributors into vandals, and certainly lost their good contributions, the answer seems to be "that's OK, we can deal with vandals". I can understand a concern if somebody was only using Misplaced Pages servers to hosts their "MySpace" content, but if they are are making decent contributions (albeit needing some guidance), then it doesn't make sense to me. They do not seem to have been disruptive in any real way. It is simply not true that they have made no contributions (at least the user I mentioned above), if we are not happy with their contributions we can deal with that. As for the justification that they got confrontational, are we surprised? I bet we could make most of our contributors confrontational if we suddenly became authoritarian with what they could and couldn't do, when there is no logical justification. Just go and find somebody leaving plates of cookies, tell them they are social networking and threaten to block them, and see what response you get. This goes for long term contributors with project buy-in, never mind kids who have just joined the project. TigerShark (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not the issue. There is no "witch hunt" or prejudice against contribution count. If an editor's only contributions are social interaction, they are misusing Misplaced Pages and should be putting that energy into another website where social interaction is the main goal. Every so often, we find MySpacey editors, list them here (or ANI), and try to figure out what to do with them. These users don't cause problems, but they don't do anything else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Super Badnik helped save an article from getting merged. SLJ made a task force to help improve articles. And all the other editors that were blocked were part of that task force. Two of them were still learning. And to learn they need to go to userspace and talk. Or as you call it, "Wrongly using Misplaced Pages." Apparently it's against policy to teach inexpierienced users.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who is enjoying there time on Misplaced Pages clearly should be blocked indefinitely, and new users should always be blocked until they have contributed at least 3 featured articles. It is completely unacceptable to start using Misplaced Pages until one is an experienced contributor who understands how everything here works.

Excuse me? That makes no sense. How can they make a featured article if they're blocked? And you're saying if someone enjoys Misplaced Pages they should be blocked? I teach inexpierienced users in my userspace or their userspace. What you're saying makes no sense at all. I've been here for almost a year and haven't made a single article on Misplaced Pages. But have not been blocked once.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

He was being sarcastic. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ryulong but you are wrong. Here are the article contributions of Super Badnik (just shy of 200). If he was only using it for hosting his content and chatting, then yes we would have a problem, but not when he has made a decent amount of contributions. Again if there are problems with the contributions, that can be dealt with in other ways. I have not checked the contributions of the other users, who may only be hosting/chatting, but that doesn't mean that we should block Super Badnik. TigerShark (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone saying she has been using Misplaced Pages only for hosting and chatting. I do know that instead of taking any of five chances to talk about this, she made an explicit legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

After you had blocked. Again, go around blocking other contributors because they have a chat with another use, talk about themselves a bit on their user page, or leave someone a barnstar, and see the response you get. The block just escalated matters. TigerShark (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(OD)A look at those contributions doesn't show 200 quality constructive edits, it shows quite a few tiny edits quickly reverted either by himself or by other editors. It's thanks to editors like this that the article for Sonic The Hedgehog (video game) is longer than the article for the Great Wall of China. Dayewalker (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So if there are issues, we can deal with those, rather than issue an indef block. I don't get your point about the Sonic article being longer than the Great Wall of China article. Remember this is a new user who doesn't understand all of our policies and guidelines. We need to be clear why we are blocking them. Is it because we don't like their contributions? TigerShark (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In this thread (above), I said why they were blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, well none of that gives you justification to block Super Badnik. It is just a jumble of concerns about some social networking and the quality and depth of contributions. Is there any policy basis to this block? If it is IAR, what problem are you solving? TigerShark (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The block notices that GG gave provides not only the reason, but also the basis by which they can be unblocked - and indefinite means just that, there is no minimum period so they can be unblocked just as soon as they undertake to use WP for the editing of articles rather than networking. I would comment that there is little evidence that they don't understand policies and guidelines, as they have got the hang of joining Wiki projects, indenting talkpages, linking, etc., so it appears that they choose not abide by some rules. Lastly, this is Misplaced Pages; it is well known as being the internet encyclopedia that anyone can edit - thus anyone participating on this site should expect to be involved in doing encyclopedic work. I don't see how this is difficult to understand. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

None of it is a valid reason to block, and he has made contributions. Just because we might be willing to unblock him later, doesn't mean with have to have a very good justification in the first place. TigerShark (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

SLJ and I taught them how to do those things. I don't know if they've read the policies or not, but I have feeling if they read the policy about using WP as a place to chat, they wouldn't have thought being tought things and being friendly fell under that category.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may please ask, what chat policy are you talking about? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(ECx2)Well put. Basically, the users are put on hold until they can show admins they know what's going on and what's expected of[REDACTED] editors. Once they do, they're reinstated. If they don't want to do that, they're not here to help in the first place. End of crisis. Dayewalker (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Being an admin doesn't give us the authority to "put users on hold" until they can show us that "they know what is going on and what's expected of Misplaced Pages editors". There are a very well defined set of reasons why we can give preventative blocks, and we are expected to weigh that against the cost of the block. Here we are going well outside of our remit. Even if we IAR, please have a look at the problems that WP:MYSPACE aims to solve and see if we have any of them here. What are we preventing with this block of Super Badnik? TigerShark (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the non-social policy. This is probably assuming bad-faith or something like that, but I think that these blocks are abusively using admin powers. And this should be noted, Badnik said this when she was appealing to be unblocked: " I have already showed i do not use[REDACTED] as myspace by making alot of contributions and i have started several articles and edit more articles than left messages on talk pages." "Started several articles." Definitely should be noted.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the users to speak up. Badnik's talk page has been protected because of her legal threat and SLJCOAAATR has started on his 2nd chance project. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an abuse of power. SLJCOAAATR doesn't need to prove that they can provide positive contributions because they already have. Super Badnik does need to withdraw his legal threat. We are acting as if we are in a position of authority rather than just having some extra buttons. I would like to unblock SLJCOAAATR and also Supe Badnik (once they have withdrawn their threat), before more damage is done. Objections? If anybody does object I would like them to explain what we are preventing with these blocks. TigerShark (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The unblock requests made by those two editors have already been declined. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the two people that reviewed declined, but I also reviewed and I would have accepted. After all of this further discussion I am requesting again that I be allowed to unblock. I am all for working with these editors to address any issues, but am not comfortable with them being blocked during the process unless we are actually preventing anything significant. They do not seem to have ever been actively disruptive. So, please, let's give the benefit of the doubt. TigerShark (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh for the love of Pete! Leave the kids alone. Forget 'bitey'... this is 'chew em up good and make damned sure they have no reason to like us'. The actions taken also make about as much sense as an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. There is a feeling that they spend too much time chatting on their talk pages and not updating articles... therefor the proper response is to block them from editing articles and make it so that they can ONLY edit their talk pages. BRILLIANT!

Suggestions for how to handle the inevitable re-appearances of this issue in the future: Say 'Hi!'. Be friendly. Give them a 'welcome' template with links on how to edit Misplaced Pages. Wait a while. Politely point out that they are spending alot more time talking than editing. Wait a while. Suggest that maybe they could have more fun on MySpace and that we really aren't here for all this chatting. Wait a while. Apologize for having to protect their user talk page(s) until they start editing more. Wait a while. Block, politely and with hopes of future reconciliation, only when it is clear that they aren't really going to contribute. Then put a note on their talk page telling them how to request unblock when they're ready. --CBD 11:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Super Badnik has retracted the legal threat in an email to me, so I have unprotected their talk page. TigerShark (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, I would like to unblock Super Badnik and SLJCAOAAATR, and plan to do so if nobody objects. I will leave it an hour to see if there are any objections. Again, if you do object, please describe what a continuation of the blocks would prevent. TigerShark (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection; my decline was based on a number of factors, mainly WP:NLT. I do think these users need to contribute to the encyclopedia in a more constructive way, but regardless of my opinion, if they say they will do so, then give them the benefit of the doubt. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an objection either, just a question. What's going to happen to Unknown, Talon, Person and Sonic&Mario?Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm greatly concerned about the block of Unknown the Hedgehog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) specifically. He has ~150 mainspace edits which, while small, seem to be improvements to articles. Why does calling another Wikipedian his "friend" get him banished for life? Is there really consensus that this user should be banned? Oren0 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that as I was writing this Gwen unblocked Unknown. Issue resolved? Oren0 (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

Note: I have unblocked Super Badnik and SLJCAOAAATR, restored their user pages, and left them a request to review WP:MYSPACE and WP:NOR and to make sure they stay within those policies. TigerShark (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You really shouldn't have unblocked with such a short duration. One hour? Give me a break. That's not long enough notice given that there was no consensus towards the block or against the block, and the numerous unblock requests were all denied by other administrators. There should have been say... 6 hours notice. I'm not going to wheel war over this, but I am disappointed that you have unblocked without much of any discussion or consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair it has been discussed substantially, and when I asked previously (3 hours before the unblock and last night) all I got back was a response to say that the unblock requests have previously been declined. Nobdoy has been able to provide a justification for what the blocks were preventing. Keeping users blocked when the block can't be justified doesn't seem the right way to go. But I didn't do this quickly, it has been discussed since last night. TigerShark (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is why I will not edit under my old account. I have well over 15,000 constructive edits to this project and really enjoy it but who ever said admins are folks with extra tools and not in positions of authority said it well. Wiki is not Myspace but it is a community. I actually have never even been to myspace and have no interest in it. Again, the blocking admin never chats, jokes or socially interacts with others on this project?? We all do it to a certain degree. There has to be a better way then indefinate block. If persons are being disruptive and have been given chance after chance and still won't abide by policy that is one thing, but this imho is another. Also, there is no place for legal or any other kind of threats. There are plenty of truely disruptive troll like creatures out there, I agree, but have these folks risen to that level? I admit I don't know. Cheers, --70.181.45.138 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! There's a lot to wade through here so I might have missed something.. but someone was enough of a whiny little kid to make a legal threat and they were unblocked anyway? I can't agree with this. Legal threats should pretty much be it - I can't think of much of a stronger indication that someone is not the kind of editor we want around here. Cut newbies some slack, certainly, but the minute someone displays an attitude of "screw you, I'll do what I want" then it's time to show them the door. Friday (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How about warn them, block them (48 hours or a week or whatever), then the door? --70.181.45.138 (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that calling them a "whiny little kid" helps here. They retracted the legal threat, which was made in the heat of the moment and in the face of a block that nobody has really been able to justify. TigerShark (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you blame her for wanting to take legal action? Getting blocked for being friendly is ridiculous. If someone nominated that particular policy for deletion, they'd have my full support.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear from what they're writing on their userpages that they see themselves as heroes, playing out some grand drama of them fighting the good fight versus those evil admins. Sadly, what's been done here has played into their little fantasies instead discouraging them from thinking such nonsense. If they're going to be unblocked, someone needs to babysit them to try to undo the damage we've done here. TigerShark, I assume you're volunteering for this task? Friday (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't I will.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this has become a drama when it never needed to. What do you think caused that drama? My actions? TigerShark (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, yes, I can blame her for going straight to a legal thread for getting blocked from a website. That's a pretty big overreaction. Glad she's redacted that now, but it's not a good idea to respond to criticism with threatening a lawsuit. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened here is, three other admins declined the unblock requests of these two editors (one of whom made about the strongest legal threat I've seen lately) and at least three other editors supported these blocks yet a single admin unblocked them without consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And likely that action will stand. I don't think anyone's willing to wheel war over this, and chances are pretty good that the users have learned their lesson. If they haven't, it's not like it's difficult to block them again. Shall we just let it lie for now and see what happens? lifebaka++ 20:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone already did wheel war but never mind. Very happily and helpfully, nobody else took it up. As I said from the beginning, I was planning on talking with each of these editors and would have been startled if we hadn't wound up unblocking most (if not all) of them, after finding ways to help them tone down the MySpaceyness whilst still having fun and contributing meaningfully to the project. As you say, hopefully they've learned from this. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a bit harsh to accuse me of wheel warring after I genuinely tried to discuss this with you. I have asked you several times to justify the blocks with a policy based reason or with an explanation of what the blocks were preventing. All you have done is say that the blocks were declined by other admins and mention WP:MYSPACE and WP:NOR, plus something about them "badgering". When I have followed these up you have never given any details that justify a block. You can accuse me of whatever you like, but perhaps you want to take this opportunity to provide a justification (again based on policy or what was being prevented). I feel that I can justify my actions, can you? TigerShark (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You wholly ignored my thorough explanations many times, asking the same questions over and over again as if I'd said nothing at all, so I'm not startled to see you carrying on with that. You wheel warred alone against a consensus of at least seven admins. You assumed bad faith on the part of the Sonic editors by claiming they would come back as vandals, even while I clearly said from the beginning that I saw good faith among them. You assumed bad faith on the part of other admins and topped it off by misquoting and misleadingly paraphrasing explanations and discussions (even while claiming these explanations didn't happen). The pith is, it's likely we both were hoping for very similar outcomes, but you didn't have faith in anyone involved, or in consensus, so you skirted what everyone else was doing and tried to "fix" things yourself. You won't agree with me, I'm ok with that, this is a collaborative project, so far as I care, we're done. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that I have not seen an explanation grounded in policy or in preventing a problem. Can you give one? Are you really claiming that you assumed good faith? You comments to the editors were along the lines of "you clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia, so I have blocked you". How is that assuming good faith, when they had made many article contributions? TigerShark (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The last I heard, it is not within policy to use Misplaced Pages for anything other than building an encyclopedia. As I and others have told you many times, their article contributions were thin, shallow and largely orginal research, along with being much outweighed by their userspace edits. I would also add that they rudely rebuffed efforts to talk about these worries before they were blocked and one of them resorted to legal threats when she was blocked. Are we done yet? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, saying these editors were all here to build an encyclopedia isn't really accurate as most of their edits didn't really add anything. Gwen blocked them, but clearly pointed out that the block would be lifted if they expressed an understanding of what[REDACTED] is actually for. One blocked editor responded with a legal threat, which clearly shows they didn't have an understanding of[REDACTED] in the first place. Now that the editors have been reinstated, they seem to understand wikipedia, and the expectations of an editor. I don't see why this is even still an issue. Dayewalker (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile they're talking on their own about a way to do most of the chat stuff off-wiki, which I think is very cool. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Told you I'd help sort it out. But we're going to be giving lessons in userspace. I'll try to get to Talon & Person to edit more.Fairfieldfencer FFF 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the best way to learn here is to go for it and edit articles straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think SLJ has learned anything. He requested that I undelete every single one of his userboxes (at least 4 dozen of them), and after reviewing 4 of them again while deleted, I said I was not going to bother. If this is the first thing he wants to do as soon as he's been blocked for WP:NOTMYSPACE, then I think that TigerShark's unblock was completely wrong here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. Since the unblock, he's got a grand total of 18 contributions outside of User:, User talk:, and Misplaced Pages:. Several of those edits weren't even constructive improvements, just the reversion of vandalism. That's great and all, but there is practically no motivation towards building the encyclopedia, especially compared to the extensive forum-shopping effort he put into getting half a zillion userboxes restored. Absolutely ridiculous. If Tiger can get off with an hour's "discussion" and it not be considered wheel warring, I'm going to give it and hour and a half. If no objections, he's reblocked for two weeks (NOT indefinite). Hersfold 01:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Given what I've seen over the past few hours, I do think the unblock was a mistake. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the reblock. MBisanz 01:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also to be considered is this user's past block log - incivility and edit warring block July 21, attacks and immaturity a week later. While the attacks have toned down, I don't see that the maturity level has improved much. Hersfold 01:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the reblock. The original block being lifted with no consequence or understanding didn't help this situation at all. Dayewalker (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also in agreement for a reblock. The original unblock did not help matters as it was done without consensus or discussion (discussions in the night and with such short durations are not conductive to reasoned talks). seicer | talk | contribs 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, User:DragonflySixtyseven has proposed a deal to return the code of the offending userboxes only, subst'd directly onto SJL's userpage. If, however, he recreates them as templates, he is to be indefinitely blocked for WP:MYSPACE. Again, if there are any objections.... Hersfold 02:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring?

Just sounding this out to ask if the community feels that offering mentoring or guidance would be a useful alternative in this situation as an alternative? I edit in a similar area to SLJ and would be happy to offer my assitance and suport in trying to guide his efforts, on the understanding that he in turn passes this on to others. I'd be interested to know if the community feels that this would be a suitable approach and if they would feel comfortable endorsing such a proposal. Many thanks, Gazimoff 09:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If it keeps him out of trouble, then I think I speak for all of us when I say, "sounds like a good idea." But he's been talking about leaving Misplaced Pages. But he's said that before and come back, (obviously). I'll ask him about it.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee keepts deleting the name war of Independence at Wars of Israel

He keeps dleting the name "war of independence to 1948 Palestine War. For NPOV I included both names. He also keeps deleting Siege of Jerusalem (1948), to some newlly invented name. it is unaccpetble to delete history, just because you don't like it. someboy must take care of it, or refer this to someone responsible. thank you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shevashalosh, I'll have a look. By the way, in future consider making similar posts to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.--PhilKnight (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you, PhilKnight. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Just for your information :

• the title issue has already been discussed on the IPCOLL project members : here. The question was to chose between 1948 Arab-Israeli War and 1948 Palestine War (Of course certainly not 1948 Independence War). The result of the discussion was to keep 1948 Palestine War;
• There is not a single source in the article Siege of Jerusalem (1948) talking about this that way. The only one refers to the 1948 Battle(s) for Jerusalem : ((he)) Levi, Ytzhak, Nine Measures: The Battles for Jerusalem in the War of Independence, Ma'arachot, 1986.

Note I justified my modifications and corrections in the articles talk page and in the diff. several times.

I also warned the projet:Israel of Shevashalosh attitude in Blood Libel at Deir Yassin and he will soon come back in a former attitude problem of edit warring to move Deir Yassin Massacre to Deir Yassin Battle.

Finally, he keeps removing wp:rs sources and references from Operation Nachshon.

To get a problem on wp, it is clear there needs to be at least two editors (so two problems...) but that is also a little bit short as a conclusion.

Ceedjee (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone just ask him to be aware of what he does : ... Please, please, please... :-( Ceedjee (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Argh... I assume I must not be on the right page ??? Or I don't know what... If somebody could tell me (on my talk page) how we are expected to do to deal this... He doesn't discuss and if I revert him, I will go on / start / perpetue the edit war. Ceedjee (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeffpw has passed on - no drama just a note

As many editors are now aware User:Jeffpw has died. Checkuser information and general human interaction appears to have confirmed this. I have fully protected his user talk page and created a sub-page for memorial comments from our fine community. This is at the request of a new account, which I have no reason to distrust in their honesty and accuracy of the situation regarding their relationship IRL to Jeff. This is just a note regarding my admin actions. No talk is really needed unless others find them in error. Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 22:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of respect for the decedent, should his account not be indefinite blocked to prevent possible abuse? (Unless we're waiting for more official confirmation) –xeno (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's not +sysop or +crat or anything that can cause harm to WP. Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 22:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose to prevent the password from being cracked and someone using it for mischief or to toy with people's emotions. I agree it's probably a non-issue, I just thought it was something that was standard and done out of respect. –xeno (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe part of me hopes that Jeff will come back Monday morning and edit, proving this to all be wrong. Sentimental? Yes. Wrong? No. Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Policies/guidelines aside, blocking a well-respected editor after his death seems wrong to me. I can't really explain it; it's just my personal view. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I should think that anyone abusing the account of a deceased editor is going to catch so much hell that - to be honest - it should be left open to snare such an individual. Other than that, I feel that it should be left to the wishes of those who knew him best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, let those who knew him best decide what he would have wanted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, I just thought it was standard procedure. No disrespect was intended, of course. –xeno (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is. See WP:BP#Securing_accounts_of_deceased_editors. That said, I've never seen the need for it. There are plenty of people who die, or just leave and forget about their accounts/passwords. The 'threat of being hacked' applies just as much to those... but isn't really a significant problem. Ergo, the ones we know about aren't really a significant problem either. Could just as well leave the accounts unblocked in case a family member wanted to leave a last message or some such. In a hundred and forty years or so we will no doubt have a bot go through to clear out people who couldn't possibly still be alive... so it'll all get taken care of eventually. :] --CBD 12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Memorial

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

I know this is one hell of a can of worms, but... why are we keeping a WP:MEMORIAL page in his user space? — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What's there doesn't hurt anything, in my view. The whole "not a memorial" thing is mainly so people know not to make mainspace pages that are memorials. Friday (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It says in the text that this relates to articles, and I think there is a lot more latitude given to userspace. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Because that's not an article and that only applies to articles. — Coren  19:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There's precedent, and no harm. It would be tactless and unnecessary to close those pages down. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is also ample precedent at pages like Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians. By the way, there is a request on the talk page over there for someone to write up something about Jeffpw for that page. Possibly there is enough to write something there now, but it feels too soon to me - I'd wait until something appears elsewhere online or in a newspaper, or until someone hears back from the family or friends who were in touch with him (everyone on that list is listed by real name - did anyone know Jeff's name?). Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we please nip this in the bud right now? As far as I can tell, that page only includes Wikipedians who had divulged their full name, and for whom sources are cited wrt their deaths. I don't know who else knows Jeff's full name, but I'm certainly not divulging it to anyone and I will encourage his family not to do so, and if anyone convinces any member of his family to post it to Wiki, I hope it will be quickly oversighted while others have a chance to discuss the reprecussions with them. I hope that page will be left for cited, sourced deaths including full names, and please let Jeffpw rest in peace. And I should add how disappointed I am to see others revealing Jeff's profession on external sites; I hope info that he hadn't publicly divulged is not divulged now that he's gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, if that page is intended to handle using only an editor name and only sources to his own page, then there's no problem with divulging new information. I just hope that people are sensitive to not revealing personal information now that he may not have revealed before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly the scope of that 'Deceased Wikipedians' page is, but I did notice that everyone there was listed under their real name, which is why I asked above about Jeffpw's name. If that is a problem here, then as Sandy says, the idea should be nipped in the bud. But anyway, it is far, far too soon to be talking about all this (a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Deceased Wikipedians in a few weeks time would be a better way forward). For now, the (very moving) tribute page should be more than enough. Could someone close this subthread in a tactful way please? Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Blood Libel at Deir Yassin

Please help!!!!!!!!!!!

--Shevashalosh (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If Hythiam was Reichstag climbing, this is, well, metaphors fail me. The article was created by Shevashalosh on Aug 3 and had serious NPOV issues from the start, leading to massive edit war over the following days. Looie496 (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Several editors have tried to turn your advertisement/WP:POV fork/WP:Coatrack into an encyclopedia article, but you act as though you WP:OWN it. You have already violated WP:3RR today. Please stop reverting before I report you. Thank you. — ] (] · ]) 00:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the article, because of the edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

<whine>But you protected the wrong version.</whine> :-) Thank you. — ] (] · ]) 00:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems I am not worth being answered while Sheveshalosh is. Good. I only wrote 5 FA for wikipedia.

He wrote here "Ceedjee is a clown" : after complaining and attacking me at different places.

All I asked was a somebody (a sysop...) "warned" him so that he should keep cool and don't have the feeling his attitude was a good way of solving problem and he doens't feel in a "strength" position.

Thank you, guys.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a warning for the clown comment. I can't speak for the rest, as I'm not familiar with the subject matter. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandal IP user

Hi, user: 82.2.236.210 continues to disrupt categories. He/she has been asked for an explanation and provides none. And he/she has insluted other users before when they warned him. He did receive a "last warning" 2 months ago, not is at it again. He/she has several warnings on his page. Please have him/her blocked out. He is VERY persistent in removing categories. Other users seem fed up with him/her too. It seems that Wikipolicies for dealing with this type of determined user are not working. What can you admins do about this person? It does not seem appropriate to just sit back and let him waste everyone's time. Please block him. Thanks History2007 (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I have blocked this IP for 72 hours for continually removing valid categories from articles despite warnings . On retrospect, that block length may have been a tad long - I can reduce it if it's desired here. Hersfold 00:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the various comments, please see: User talk:Hersfold. In the end, I took the time to type it all up. It is all clear from the talk page of the article in question, but in the end that user managed to take up a lot of time from everyone involved and laugh at them: his initial intent, obviously. I really think Misplaced Pages policies need review, as explained there. So many good people have to spend so much time to deal with a few guys who can sit at a Starbucks and laugh at everyone by just hitting undo. Please consider a review of Misplaced Pages policies on IP vandals in general. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Either way, Misplaced Pages:Revert, block, ignore is worth thinking about here. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at that page. But it is an essay based on a psychological theory. There has been no clinical validation of that theory with respect to Misplaced Pages, as far as I can see on that page. A more suitable item would be a simple Intrusion detection system or Intrusion detection approach, adapted to multiple reverts, category restructuring etc. By the way, both of those intrusion pages need serious clean up, and the time I have spent dealing with this fellow, could have been used for that.... sigh... History2007 (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't honestly expect us to get a clinical study of vandalism on Misplaced Pages. Be practical. Instead of complaining about how much time you've "wasted" through your complaining about our policies, go improve the articles you say need cleanup. We can't just wave a magic wand and have things suddenly work our to your exacting specifications, so don't expect us to. Hersfold 18:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What I am going to do is design a better system. Frankly, I see you admins as working far too hard. As you may have noticed, user Face figured out the identity of that vandal by doing some clever analysis. I think you guys are in real need of better tools and better methodologies. One day, you should be able to click a couple of buttons and figure out what Face discivered after an hour or two of work, within 90 seconds. Do you have a database of known puppets and their behavior patterns that can be easily queired? I guess not. Puppet knowledge is folklore now. It must be centralized. You are doing visual inspection of files. In this day and age of database technology, someone needs to say: "STOP & BUILD a DATABASE". Think of the effort that will save all of you. The technology is there, Misplaced Pages just needs to wake up and start using it. I will start designing that database soon, and post the design somewhere and try to see what happens. I really feel you guys are working way too hard just because you have antique tools. That should change, and will in the long term improve the content of Misplaced Pages. History2007 (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Contacted by the subject of an article

I was recently called, at home, by the subject of an article I've been editing from time to time. Fortunately, he thinks I'm the only neutral editor in the bunch....but I was wondering what I should do. I should add that he's not pressuring me for specific edits, and he knows I cannot include statements he sends me, unless published, in the article. I'd also like to contact somebody (probably ArbComm), so I can let them know who it is and what he did ask me to do (which is consistent with Misplaced Pages policies, IMHO). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How did this person get your phone number? What article are you talking about? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Contact ArbCom directly. If this matter is confidential, it should go straight to them. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask how he got my phone number, but I have an idea, and it doesn't require a genius. The fact that I still live in the Los Angeles Times delivery area (see Arthur Rubin) and that I consider myself a southern Californian and a mathematician (see my userboxen) should give clues enough for anyone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sent to ArbCom. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Would someone review this deletion by Fut Per?

I'm pretty certain this deletion by Fut Per needs review here. I'm not looking for DRV, I want some commentary on the actual use of tools by Fut Per. It seems out of line to override the fact that both commenters recommended "keep", and supported their recommendations with valid commentary, and delete anyway, citing the admins own view of NFCC (which was contradicted by both commenters, and is disupted at WT:NFCC)as the only reason seems a clear misuse of tools. _D.Jameson 03:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please address deletion concerns at WP:DRV. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I made it clear my reason for bringing it here: misuse of administrator tools. _D.Jameson 03:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Reports of administrator abuse should go to WP:ANI, not here. Sorry for the run-around. PeterSymonds (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't classify it as "abuse", nor would I necessarily classify it as an "incident." I simply wanted some commentary on this administrator's use of his tools to simply enforce his view of hos policy should be interpreted over the discussion at that IfD. This seemed the best place for it, as there was no urgent action needed or anything like that. _D.Jameson 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is neither an abuse nor an incident, then it really is just a disagreement over Fut Per's decision to delete. WP:DRV is the proper venue to challenge the deletion. Resolute 03:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see any abuse misuse of the tools. Fair use policy always trumps consensus, so at most this is a disagreement over interpretation and borderline calls like this are not easy. I do think it belongs at WP:DRV. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the two views of NFCC enforcement are so different, that calling it a difference in "interpretation" is probably underplaying it a bit too much. I'd say that it's basic enough that a policy disagreement is the best way to describe it. In that case, the question becomes something on the order of "Is it appropriate, when there is a clear lack of consensus about how a policy is to be enforced, for an administrator to use his or her tools to follow a specific and extreme version of enforcement?"

As an aside - I don't really understand the conceptual difference between what should go to WP:AN and what should go to WP:AN/I. Can someone give me a thumbnail version? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 05:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The short-short version: ANI is (ostensibly)for issues requiring immediate admin attention (massive vandalism, abuse of admin tools, hacked accounts, etc.); AN is for things needing a more broad discussion, and possibly action using admin tools, but not necessarily something that has to be responded to "OMG NOW!"

In this case, neither is really appropriate because the NFCC policy is just plain vague. There have been recent debates on the subject here & on DRV and consensus seems to be that we're stuck with a vague policy that can be loosely interpreted. Until the Foundation clarifies NFCC, there's not much that can be done about it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the AN-ANI lesson, which makes perfect sense. About the vagueness of NFCC policy, I agree, and I understand that it creates problems for admins trying to enforce it, but I note that for Fut Per, there is clearly (from the evidence of his comments on the DRV that's been opened) no problem whatsoever, and that his/her understanding of NFCC is precise and strongly-held. The difficulty with that is that he or she has substituted their own ideas about NFCC enforcement for the non-existent general consensus, hence the existence of the complaint made here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

My question for this noticeboard (given your above commentary) is whether or not Fut Per's substitution of his draconian interpretation of such a vague policy for the measured recommendations of the commenters is appropriate. It is definitely admin-related, as he used his tools to delete the image in direct violation of the guidelines set for IfD-closing administrators. _D.Jameson 14:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This noticeboard isn't really the place for that debate. As I said, the problem is with NFCC being as subject to interpretation as it is. People have already debated FP's methods, and came to no conclusion other than "Foundation will need to reassess the NFCC policy." At this point, there's no real consensus other than that. It is not clear that FP's deletions are inappropriate, much less "draconian." If this really bothers you, your best bet is to open a WP:RFC on the topic (not necessarily FP himself, though that may be appropriate as well). The problem being, even if it goes to ArbCom, there's not a whole lot they can do. FP might get sanctioned if he's overdoing it, but the fundamental problem with NFCC is beyond their control. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've opened a deletion review on this image. I completely concur with Ed's assessment above. Fut Per takes his/her NFCC interpretation to extremes, and uses the tools to enforce this view. I don't personally upload non-free images, but this type of admin deletion really needs to stop. _D.Jameson 05:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please issue warnings for improper reverts to 9/11

This should be a very simple matter but it isn't. I summarized 6 versions of the introductory sentence to the talk page of September 11, 2001 attacks and added a 7th at the suggestion of another editor (Peter Grey). This was left 2 weeks ago and no opposition was registered.

A few others are constantly reverting WITHOUT discussion or compromise. Others object to their version. (see comma discussion).

I have written to one of those editors to ask for compromise and alternative versions. Their response is that the insist and no compromises will be allowed. diff is http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AIce_Cold_Beer&diff=230933647&oldid=230927211 referring to a false consensus.

I think administrators should attempt to defuse the issue and to issue a block to Ice Cold Beer IF that editor refuses to discuss and compromise. If that user agrees to discuss as I have, I think the problem is solved. Presumptive (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

IceColdBeer has refused to discuss and reverted back to her/his non-consensus version. Bullies always win because I am letting it go. However, I did put a template warning on there which will probably be removed also. Do administrators support IceColdBeer's aggressive style? If so, should I copy it even though I favor discussion?

I went to WP:RFPP earlier and requested full-protection due to continued edit-warring over the lead. Enigma 06:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that I've done anything wrong here. Presumptive's changes are being made without consensus, so I've been reverting him/her. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Presumptive has been blocked for 3RR, as his preferred version has been reverted by 4 distinct editors. (I didn't do it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Magibon article

Help is needed for the article about Youtuber Magibon. There are constantly people who try to make it impossible to write this (already difficult) article by deleting or tagging or using methods of slight vandalism. I was not on Wikpedia for a few days and now the article looks worse than before.--Firithfenion (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is bad. Removing tags and adding an unreferenced section make it worse.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh thanks for your advice. What kind of reference do you expect for a video overview? The reference is the channel where the videos can be found. The overview describes what can be found there.--Firithfenion (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

References as in reviews, criticism, etc. published in reliable, third-party sources. If it's just a "video overview," it doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. Given that the article is about the person, not the video(s), an overview isn't necessary. I'm more concerned about the fact that there doesn't appear to be enough information here to satisfy WP:BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

SWAT article

Would an administrator please look at the article on SWAT. An IP editor ( 140.232.150.91) keeps adding info back in that is WP:OR and making disruptive edits. I have appealed to him to discuss the issue several times, but he is refusing. He is also making the article point to military references instead of strictly law enforcement ones, such as calling them special forces. I don't want to get into an edit war, but this is becoming disruptive. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To add to this, I'm coming at it from the military side, the IP does appear to be pretty dogmatic about associating SWAT with military SF, despite the significant differences. A review of contributions indicates an unwillingness to discuss contributions across a range of similar articles.

ALR (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

My contention has been simple: SWAT in and of itself is notable. There is no need to prop it up with terms to make it sound like SF or Seals. He seems to want to over-emphasize the counter-terrorism role. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:82.111.128.3

Hi, I think that fellow 82.2.236.210 who was just blocked just reincarnated as User talk:82.111.128.3 and went after both me and Hugo again, vandalizing and insulting. He is doing EXACTLY the same reverts as the blocked user. Could you block him again, and permanently so? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator but IP addresses cannot be permanently blocked. Policy forbids it, as most are dynamic...... Dendodge .. Talk 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend nothing more than 72 hours, although 84 seems reasonable...... Dendodge .. Talk 13:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation: Policy allows a user at a Starbucks to cause havoc and laugh at everyone, and Misplaced Pages admins are unable to protect the content. Hence the policy needs to change. It is a hopeless policy, obviously. It needs to change so ONLY registered users with a given number of valid edits can change said pages for say 3 months. History2007 (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken identity? This IP, User talk:82.111.128.3, has about twenty normal-looking contributions since June 1, mostly on religious topics. On 23 April 2008 someone using this IP vandalized the user page of Hugo.arg. That was four months ago. Most likely a different person using the same IP address. I see no cause for blocking this IP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Again: policy failed. period. Said IP left me an insulting message and did the same reverts as the blocked ones. And you seenothing. Great. just great. What can I say....? History2007 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So, you want us to prevent people from ever using Misplaced Pages at that Starbucks location? Really, if you have a problem with policy, try to change the policy (Misplaced Pages talk:BLOCK). But you can't say "policy failed," when the entire point is that we don't punish everyone who uses a public IP for the problems of one person. As for "only logged in editors should be able to edit," see WP:PEREN. It won't happen. That aside, if you're getting harassing messages from an IP, your best solution is to request your Talk page be semi-protected for a time. It won't be permanant, but short protections are good for bursts of trolling. For most trolls, though, your best policy is Revert-Block-Ignore. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with HandThatFeeds. Revert and ignore them. The more attention you give them, the more they celebrate. I've ignored the particularly nasty vandalism on my user page and nobody's bothered me since then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have investigated the edits of 82.2.236.210, who was reported earlier by History2007. I have discovered that this person is very likely User:Pionier. Please see my comment here and the following AN and ANI discussions I found:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive105#POV anons.2C how to deal with
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive284#User:Pionier
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive325#Persistent disruptive re-categorizing anon

Pionier is a sockpuppeteer who has been active on this wiki and the Lithuanian Misplaced Pages for more than a year. He or she is a Christianity and Judaism POV pusher, with an interest in categorization. He/she is also against gays and against Lithuanians, and has made personal attacks against users who are. In my opinion, this goes beyond simple revert-block-ignore vandalism. This is not some dumb teenager looking for attention. I think further action should be taken. May I suggest a central abuse report to keep track of all the IPs used? Cheers, Face 18:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is what User:Face found out (copied from here):

User:82.2.236.210 / User:Pionier

I see that 82.2.236.210 was blocked while I was away. I have investigated his/her edits, and found the following:

• He/she has altered the categorisations and nationality of Lithuanian Jewish chess players in an attempt to emphasize that they are Jewish, and to de-emphasize that they are Lithuanian. Those edits do not seem to be very neutral. Here are some examples: .
• He/she has removed Category:Christian denominations‎ from other category pages. You seem to know a thing or two about Christian stuff. Could you check if those edits are ok, and if they're not, revert them?
• He/she has made personal attacks against Hugo.arg , who states on his userpage that he is a native Lithuanian.
• The remaining edits of this user mostly consists of placing categories in another order, making wikilinks, and adding newlines. This is not disruptive. He/she seems to have made quite some constructive edits.
• He/she is interested in articles about Christianity, and has added/removed several categories in related articles. Some of these edits seem correct, others seem not.

The most interesting edit I found is this one: . This indicates that the person is very likely User:Pionier, a known sockpuppeteer who has been active on this wiki and the Lithuanian Misplaced Pages for more than a year. See:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive105#POV anons.2C how to deal with
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive284#User:Pionier
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive325#Persistent disruptive re-categorizing anon

Woohoo, welcome to the noble art of vandal fighting! Perhaps a central abuse report should be created, where we can keep notes about all the IPs s/he has used so-far. I will leave a note about this at WP:AN because I think further action should be taken. Cheers, Face 18:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet, I am amazed that Face has to spend so much time to do something that better intrusion detection technology could have done. That is what is missing from Misplaced Pages policies and procedures. History2007 (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering no security has actually been breached, intrusion detection would be ineffective here. Kudos to Face for sussing this out, though. Still, about the best we can do is a temporary block on the IP. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we set up an abuse report? A lot of different IPs seem to be used by this person, as you can see here. As Andrew c also noted there, nearly all of the addresses go back to England and BT Total Broadband, and some of them belong to internet cafes. Cheers, Face 19:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the technology issue. Please see affinity analysis and how it could have reduced Face's workload here by a significant amount if applied to user edits. Thanks History2007 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand the scope of the problem. Face had to make a logical leap ("this looks similar to edits by X") and then investigate the matter. How do you write machine code to make that first association by intuition? — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Serial Reverts by 2o345h (talk · contribs)

Resolved – Blocked indefinitely. D.M.N. (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin have an urgent look at , looks very odd. Jayen466 14:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not an IP - but it is odd. The best theory I can come up with is use of WP:AVT...... Dendodge .. Talk 14:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course you're right, not an IP, but a new user. I lack the equipment to deal with it, but the sooner someone puts a stop to it, the less work afterwards. Jayen466 14:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Nope, it's not AVT. I'm thinking sockpuppetry .They're all about User:Will Beback too...... Dendodge .. Talk 14:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User is systematically undoing edits by Will Beback (talk · contribs). Jayen466 14:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. D.M.N. (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Serial reverter, part 2

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Ejn5rt6jn5
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/John--Joghn
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/45iohj

Jayen466 15:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lemonsquares&action=history Jayen466 15:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/La_Secta_All_Star Jayen466 15:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody, for the help with this vandal. It's the latest rampage from Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings arbitration remedy

Proposal to overturn here. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion, please

Could I have another admin look at LifeGuard Medical Solutions, please? It's been a bit of an adventure already - I tried to tag it as a G11 speedy with Twinkle, but Twinkle decided to just delete it without confirming with me, then it was recreated, so I tagged it manually, the creator removed the tag, and I've now tagged it as an advert and would appreciate someone sanity-checking for me. It has what appears to be an attempt to indicate notability, but I don't find much in searching about, and it's written entirely in marketspeak. I've done more than enough to the poor thing already, I'd appreciate someone else's view. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I was about to try a rewrite, when I realized there wasn't enough inside of that market-speak for me to tell what the company actually does. So I G11'd it again, ignoring the removal of the tag by the author (they're not supposed to do that anyways). Company might be notable, but it's extremely hard to tell from what I've seen so far. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

When there are reliable third party sources then there may be an article, but not as it stood. Good (without prejudice) delete. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, folks. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Working Group on ethnic and cultural edit wars

As some may know, as part of the ArbCom Palestine-Israel articles case, a Working Group was established to spend six months investigating the problem of ethnic and cultural edit wars, provide data about the problem, and recommendations on how to proceed. The final report from the working group is now available, so anyone that wishes to review it, please see: Misplaced Pages:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report. --Elonka 19:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain what this is?

Looks like nonsense to me.--WhoopRoot (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's what's called a double redirect. The first page (Shree Swaminarayan Sampraday) redirects to Sahajanand Swami (Lord Swaminarayan), which in turn redirects to Bhagwan_Swaminarayan. To protect you from potentially ending up in an endless loop, however, the Misplaced Pages software will only follow the first redirect. If it hits another one, it stops. That's what you're seeing there - you click on Shree Swaminarayan Sampraday, then you end up at Sahajanand Swami (Lord Swaminarayan) where you only see the code to take you onto Bhagwan_Swaminarayan, not the page itself. It's fixable by pointing the first page directly at the third, cutting out the middle-page. _Gb 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Which I've now done. More info can be found here. _Gb 20:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's not what I saw before I reverted it; I saw a huge page full of something added by Maelgwnbot, whom I have now notified. Seems to be a rare glitch. --Rodhullandemu 20:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. *coughs*. Well, erm, you can have that lesson on double redirects for free, anyway..._Gb 20:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The content added by Maelgwnbot looks like a copy of User:Erwin85/Protected pages/Main/Sysop/Permanently/1. The bot made other errors around the same time; a similar edit on Talk:Denial of Soviet occupation and a different error on Ray's Urine, changing a redirect to an article into a Wiktionary soft redirect. --Snigbrook 21:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to overturn Privatemusings' arbcom restrictions

(moved to AN per many suggestions) NonvocalScream (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed: By consensus of the community (should such consensus be found below), remedy #2 of the Arbcom case "Privatemusings" is hereby overturned. (background: arbitrators have indicated that the restriction is being kept in place to penalize his attitude towards arbcom rather than out of a genuine need. This constitutes a dereliction of the committee's duty to the community, and the committee is clearly no longer competent to decide this case.) --Random832 (contribs) 07:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - arbcom have not yet commented on it since my proposed remedy. John Vandenberg 07:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn — I think the 90-day block and an indefinite restriction from editing BLP article is out of hand. If he begins to commit serious BLP violations, then greater penalties should be meted out. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This doesn't seem the right place to be making this type of proposal. -- Fyslee / talk 08:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Contrary to Random832's contention, arbitrators have not indicated that Privatemusings' restriction on biographies of living people is being retained "to penalise his attitude towards arbcom". Privatemusings can't edit BLP articles so we can't directly assess what would happen if his restriction was removed. When considering whether to lift the restriction, arbitrators tend to look to an editors' general behaviour. If they are spotted editing pages they shouldn't, or making disruptive proposals anywhere, this counts against removing restrictions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see it's been an interesting wiki weekend! - Sam - in taking a look at my general behaviour, did you have a look at the many BLP suggestions I've been making over the last month or so at my mentoring page? - I'm not really sure how you could have missed that page with even a cursory look at my contributions, and I'm not sure you would have made the above comment if you had seen the page... hmmmm.... about the "editing pages they shouldn't" bit - are you sure that this page "shouldn't" be edited at all by the likes of me? (I was genuinely unaware of this policy being different to any other) - why not protect it? I felt consensus was clear after substantial discussion, and was glad when the section was added to the policy.

Obviously I'd like the restriction lifted, and it seems others may be reading events the same way as Random - I really appreciate this community discussion, and will follow it with great interest. My talk page is always open if anyone has any questions.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I'm with Fyslee and Sam: I don't see how it is assumed that the arbitrators were just making a WP:POINT with PM (fact tag applied in humor more than anything else), and this doesn't seem to be the right venue for overturning ArbCom. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If the arbitration committee believe that editors are not permitted to edit the arbitration policy it should protect the page to make this clear. I don't see how making a (relatively minor) edit to a policy, being reverted, and accepting the reversion can be considered disruptive. As for the other diff you offer as evidence, I don't think most people would consider that proposal disruptive or indicative at all of his ability to edit BLPs; it's actually a fairly amusing proposal and not at all malicious. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sam, its funny the only examples you use as disruptive editing were edits relating to arbcom, and the edits were not all that disruptive. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. I don't see where the damge can occur, many editors are watching him and the restriction has already done its job. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn He has learned his lesson and I feel is very trustworthy. Bstone (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn: Sanctions should preventative, and not used to punish. The sanctions are greater than necessary, and overturning this one should do no harm...... Dendodge .. Talk 15:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn: Dozens of editors have been either lightly to absurdly/disruptively critical of the Arbcom over the Cla/SV/FM arbitration which is about to hit four months of non-activity. Singling out Privatemusings for that isn't helpful, and the general community that elected the Arbcom can do something like this if there is consensus. Besides, if he screws up even once on a BLP edit afterwards I'd give it <30 minutes before he's hauled in front of ANI to renew the sanctions with a valid community mandate that has teeth. rootology (T) 15:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn As others have said, sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. This goes farther than it needs to, and I don't see how keeping it in place benefits the wiki at large. While I always assume good faith, I can't help but notice the two coincidental facts that the user has an attitude critical of arbcom and that he is receiving much more than regular sanctions for this type of offense. Celarnor 15:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• VP has no standing to overturn an arbcom ruling. So I'll merely comment here... to say overturn is rather presumptious. While I have some considerable sympathy to the comments of the arbitrators that PM ought not to get quite so involved in meta matters (and I've counseled him that way more than once, see my talk and his garden page), I do think that he's shown his mettle with respect to BLP matters now, and I'd advocate lifting the restriction.... ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus can change? Just tossing it out for Devil's Advocate... rootology (T) 16:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I'm under the impression that that particular page was not an actual Committee, but discussion about a Committee that never resulted in anything. Ral315 (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Venue error - should be on WP:RFAr. Did anyone actually mention this to the arbitrators, perchance? - David Gerard (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think discussion here is ok, regardless of the venue. The arbitrators know, because its on the RFAR page by random832. Even if this is impotent, the message is clear. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's impotent, there's really nothing but Wikidrama to it. Really, this would be better handled through an WP:RfC than through a straw poll on the Village Pump. Polling here is going to accomplish nothing, but an RfC at least has some legitimacy. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, process is not important here. What is important is that the arbitrators see this discussion, no matter the location. I don't think they will say "It was not in the RFC namespace, so we won't listen". Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wish we could overturn but I don't think that we can. I strongly urge the arbitrators to overturn it (rather than forcing a showdown against the community on village pump). ⇒SWATJester 16:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not? We elect them to serve us as a dispute resolution venue, not to be our invulnerable overlords. A people's nullification is badly needed to set an example for the Committee, and this is an excellent candidate for it. Celarnor 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Because by overturning this committee that we have put into power without a formalized-by-policy method of doing so, we are setting a precedent that all of their decisions can be overturned by a group of people who think they know better. In essence, we would be destroying our current arbcom, and creating little mini-VP arbcoms whenever we don't like a decision. No, this cannot happen. I want to see PM's sanctions lifted as much as anyone else, but it must be the arbitrators, or some other "higher authority" such as Jimbo that does so. Not the Village Pump. ⇒SWATJester 20:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, this is symbolic. For this to be binding would have many implications. If it is done, it must be one by the committee. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Questions: Who is planning to close this discussion? If they close it as "overturn," what is supposed to happen then? Isn't all this is doing basically sanctioning wheel-warring, since if this proposal passes both an admin who blocks PM for editing a BLP article and one who unblocks him can claim to be following procedure? And in adjudicating such a wheel-war, what on earth would arbcom's position be? Chick Bowen 16:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a display of community opinion. I don't think we can actually overturn. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, someone comes around who favors old-school consensus over elitism. Although, as NonvocalScream has pointed out, the community has lost its power, so we have to rely on the good graces of the admins and bureaucrats to keep the oligarchs in check, which is an unlikely outcome. Celarnor 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Per Nonvocal Scream and Swatjester. Durova 16:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose overturn. The village pump is a poor choice of venue for discussion of overturning an arbitration remedy. Discussion such as this should be done "by the book" and with as little deviation from our norms as possible, lest any consensus derived from here be void: until a move is made to a more appropriate forum (I recommend theadministrators' noticeboard or a requests for comment), I'm unwilling to offer my support here regardless of the situation's specifics. Furthermore, I am not convinced of the legitimacy of this thread: it seems to be to be an opportunity for editors who hold an anti-ArbCom stance to facilitate the undermining of the committee by the community. That's not fair on Privatemusings, not helpful to the encyclopedia, and not the way to bring about change; and yet, I fear that is what is really happening here.

  As a comment re/ the specifics of Privatemusings' case, it case seems to me to be that he is "making tracks in the right direction" -- however, more work is needed. On the condition that Privatemusings continues to make positive improvements in his approach to wikipedia's BLP articles, including "toning down" his contrib's to the more high profile BLP articles to be more reasonable, I would be happy to file proceedings with the Committee in (roughly) three month's time, to have his restriction loosened or (if appropriate) lifted. We're a tad too early at the moment, for a few reasons (※ Sam Blacketer's comments during the most recent appeal against PM's BLP restriction), but it's not far to go now. However, this discussion is certainly not the way to go, and I'm simply relieved Privatemusings hasn't instigated this thread himself. Anthøny 17:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

While the Committee (as an entity, taking into account its history of overstepping powers granted it by the community, et cetra, not meant as an insult to the current incarnation) has a lot of problems, I think the community is headed in the right direction in terms of reforming it into something more useful and managable by the electorate since the recent RFA. I wouldn't necessarily call those who commented here 'anti-arbcom' solely based on the fact that they don't appreciate the body's bias in making decisions that affect the ability of a user to edit and that the community is left with no recourse but a sort of people's nullification; personally, I think we need an ArbCom, but what we don't need is one we can't control. It shouldn't matter where discussion is held; the important thing is that it is held. Process for the sake of process is ridiculous. The important thing is that the discussion is held in a highly public, neutral venue; I can't think of anything more neutral and highly public than the village pump, so I would argue that this is the perfect place for this kind of discussion. Celarnor 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If you actually want this to happen, why don't you raise it as an appeal to ArbCom (somewhere on the RfAr pages) instead of presenting it in the form of an insult here that they should rightly ignore? If you're right about this issue, you're still wrong about this approach.--Father Goose (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As I am sure it is referenced more than three times in this discussion and in the proposal, this is in reference to a request already at RFAR. o.O NonvocalScream (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• In my opinion it is inappropriate for a consensus among dozen or two editors to override the consensus of a committee chosen by hundreds of Wikipedians for the purpose of handling cases just like this. If the community doesn't have faith in the decisions of the ArbCom it should deal with that problem directly. PM's topic ban is a very minor issue, and even if it were unneccessary it does negligible harm to the project. OTOH, undercutting the ArbCom would have a tremendous effect and I can't see how it would benefit the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose overturning Given PM's past record of editing in violation of his restriction, attempting to coerce uninvolved admins to proxy-edit for him, announcing his intention to defy his restriction twice, I cannot support overturning this restriction. MBisanz 23:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose overturning; Privatemusings' behavior has indicated willful disregard toward the remedy, going so far as to ignore it at one point. I don't believe removing it would have a positive effect on the encyclopedia. And for the record, this is the wrong way to go about this. Ral315 (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose overturning I don't believe we as a community should be overturning AC decisions unless they are egregiously wrong. Even if you disagree with this remedy, it is clearly not unreasonable. To promote the general effectiveness of Arbitration decisions, only outrageous ones should be overturned. Sam Korn 14:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closure

User:HandThatFeeds attempted to close this as "improper venue for discussion". I reverted this. Discussion is ok, should not be silenced. Venue is not important here. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, I disagree completely but, eh, not worth stressing over. I'm not trying to silence discussion, but this is just straw-polling, not discussion. Venue is important if you want to actually accomplish anything, rather than just sitting around navel gazing. (Good god, we have articles on everything!) — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think closure on that basis was entirely appropriate. Aside from the merits of the proposal itself, these things are normally discussed at AN or ANI when they come up at all. Durova 18:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure even ANI is suited for this. My close message proposed an WP:RfC, as that would allow people to provide much more input than this, and allow for more nuanced discussion. If the purpose is to overturn ArbCom... well, realistically, that won't happen. If the purpose is to bring attention to this matter to ArbCom, then an RfC is much more effective than this show of hands. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about this, I'm positive this is the wrong venue, for one simple reason: take a look at how large this discussion has become in less than a day. Give it 5 days, and how much of VPR will it have taken over? This is either going to overwhelm VPR, or get moved to a sub-page. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the community has been known to add remedies on top of what ArbCom has imposed. Overturning an ArbCom remedy is a different matter: it would be a radical move, especially since the Committee recently confirmed its decision in this instance. With respect toward PrivateMusings (whom I collaborate with in other matters), this particular proposal attempts to open two or three different cans of worms simultaneously. No matter how I feel about the merits of his sanction (or the current state of ArbCom), this proposal is crafted and presented in a way that would set too many difficult precedents. Durova 18:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Durova, this should have been at WP:AN instead. ⇒SWATJester 20:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, why should this be at WP:AN? Is this something only adminstrators should be aware of, or is the administrators' noticeboard the new, de-facto community noticeboard? --Conti|✉ 23:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There were a few suggestions to move to AN. I can't make everyone happy. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen them above. And I'm curious about the reasons for those suggestions. --Conti|✉ 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• What, overturn it on the grounds that he violated it almost from the outset? Not, perhaps, the very best idea I've ever heard. PM still does not even seem to accept that he did anything wrong, so overturning the remedy would not IMO be a terribly good idea. He spent the whole of the time he was banned telling everyone that he'd done nothing wrong, and is doing so still. His edits to the di Stefano and King articles were, as the arbitration case found, careless. In the di Stefano case, he also completely failed to heed wise counsel. And he edited BLPs as soon as he came back. So I'd not ereally be comfortable with overturning a sanciton imposed for good cause without evidence that PM is prepared to abide by it - i.e. show self-control and self discipline. Guy (Help!)
  • No, overturn on the grounds that it's being kept in place for a reason other than a concern that his future edits to BLPs would be problematic. If you are concerned that his edits would be problematic (a concern that the arbitrators do not in fact share, based on the fact that Sam Blacketer has said he would have considered lifting it if PM had not criticized arbcom) you're welcome to watch his edits yourself. --Random832 (contribs) 23:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you are materially misrepresenting Sam Blacketer's statement above. My opposition to removing the sanction at this time is not based on criticism of the Arbitration Committee. To the best of my knowledge, it is not the basis of other arbitrators' objections either. However, I think that the Committee would be more open to defining a clear timetable (with strong pre- and post-conditions) for removing this restriction and would support a sensible proposal along these lines. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify something: any discussion of this type must be considered absolutely a nonbinding discussion. There is no possibility for "By consensus of the community a decision of the ArbCom is hereby overturned." If the time has come for Privatemusings to make an appeal, and if he has many good people in the community willing to vouch for him, then I am sure that both the ArbCom and myself will deal with it appropriately. This idea of ArbCom vs. the Community is poisonous, please do not let that kind of meme take hold.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo above. I like the fact we are having this discussion, it is however, nonbinding. But I encourage it to continue. The committee executes our will, I'm sure they will see this. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. The ArbCom is intended to handle issues which the community can't solve on its own. In cases where the community can come to a consensus on something (and I have no idea if that is the case here) there is no need to involve the ArbCom. Haukur (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"ArbCom vs. the Community" can only take hold if the two parties are thinking in different directions, and if that is the case it is hard to avoid. If we value having the ArbCom and the Community being on the same page, it seems pretty clear to me which party should be the accomodating one. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"ArbCom vs. the Community" is, I am afraid, being fostered by the ArbCom, not the Community. You should also note that there is an RfC (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee) in progress that aims to review and reform the Arbitration Process. I do not believe that the people who have contributed to this process believe that it's only 'advisory'. We intend to actualy change the Arbitration Policy. The Arbitration Committee must be accountable to the community. I hope you will not block this. --Barberio (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that a community discussion can never reverse a decision taken by ArbCom? Doesn't that do against everything we're supposed to believe about community supremacy? Puzzled. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Jimbo, this "Arbcom vs. the Community" stuff all stems from the community having very little faith in the present Arbcom members. Mostly because they have been twiddling their thumbs for three months now on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. I do not believe most of the present Arbcom are capable of dealing with anything other than simple cases in an appropriate manner. Neıl ☄ 00:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• The key here is that this is a consensus based project, ultimately the arbcom works for the editors, not the other way around. Arbcom needs the community to support and carry out its rulings, or it is powerless. Arbcom has been growing more and mroe separated from editors since its inception, and that is causing a whole lot of issues. Ultimately some editors and arbcom members need to be reminded who works for whom. Prodego 03:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the delays in that case are getting kind of ridiculous, but ArbCom do seem to be pretty good at handling smaller, less controversial cases, and I'd say one they've already ruled on fits the bill for that. Orderinchaos 04:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to consider a true "Arbcom vs. the Community", I myself start paraphrasing Ronald Reagan-- My idea of the Community versus The Arbcom mmembers is simple, and some would say simplistic. It is this: We win and they lose. , we of course, being the larger community.

If the community ever has a consensus, a true consensus, with a truly representative sampling of the community--- then it's essentially a policy and thats the end of story. Arbs are there to resolve disputes when no consensus can be found-- not to dictate the results of disputes in cases where consensus has been achieved.

But totally premature to try to argue that abstract debate here. For one, I don't seem myself arguing for a community-based Jury nullification in this case. And secondly, this is a simple case-- if there's was an actual consensus here, arbcom would support it, I'm sure; so in the end, it doesn't matter one way or the other what we would do if arbcom ever tried to go against consensus. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are no binding decisions on Misplaced Pages. But the community certainly can decide not to enfoce an ArbCom restriction. As in some other recent cases, there are probably good reasons for the ArbCom's behavior, but they are not communicated to the community well enough. In this case, arbitrators should try not to come across as using criticism of their actions as a reason for seemingly unrelated editing restrictions. In the C68-SV-FM case, it would be nice to get signals from ArbCom of the type "we're still working on it" or "evidence is still welcome that might help us decide either way". A breakdown of communication in the OM case has recently damaged the ArbCom's reputation; now we find (at least) two more communication problems. Clarity and openness from the ArbCom (along with the regained trust by the community that comes with openness) could probably help against the "ArbCom against community" meme more than disallowing organized dissent. Kusma (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for patience

Hi, could we suspend this discussion for a little while? I've had an idea that might resolve this pretty well on all sides. Am getting in contact with Private Musings and if he agrees I'll move forward formally. Best regards, Durova 03:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and believe the discussion should continue concurrently with the AC review, and the appeal to Jimbo. Incidentally, I have offered this, anything I can do to help you and help this editor edit productively, let me know. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Proposal_by_Durova. I hope that's generally acceptable (it is to Privatemusings). Requesting courtesy closure of this thread in the interests of drama reduction. With respect toward all, Durova 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope the arb.s will look at the mentoring suggestions now at the arb page (and I'm glad that recent comment may be moving in that direction...) - on a 'point of order' I'd hope that a very strong community consensus could certainly supersede any arbcom decision, and believe open discussion of this sort of thing to be healthy and a 'good thing' :-) I can't honestly say right now that there's a strong enough consensus for me to be able to edit freely immediately - but I do find it interesting to look at all rationales presented.... I'm afraid I find some comments to have lacked rigour in their examination of current events.. your mileage may vary of course... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this even a concern?

User:Bandsofblue has been indef banned for vandalism way back (and appropriately too). However, (s)he is still editing a lot on their talk page User talk:Bandsofblue, basically looking like they are creating articles that mimic the season pages for many reality TV shows, exception that they are complete false w/ fake(?) participant names, episode descriptions, and soforth, and that the user seems to cycle through a new one of these every three or four days, erasing an existing one to restart a new page on a different show.

There's been no obvious IP/different user attempt to merge these changes into WP, so I doubt there's an issue of sock/meatpuppetry going on, but I wonder what the heck this user is doing and if its something that we really should be worried about. I can't trace it easier to any off-WP activity, but it could be a "fantasy" league of some sort, but if the user is using WP to "track" the results, that's obviously against WP:NOT. Am I just being paranoid about this? --MASEM 21:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Masem, I've reverted and protected the page. PhilKnight (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

JPG-GR removed rebuttal comments in WP:RM page

User talk:JPG-GR removed rebuttal comments in Misplaced Pages:Requested moves at stating that the rm discussion was on the talk page. It is NOT in the WP:RM talk page. He also restored the proposal by User talk:Croctotheface to rename the ABN AMRO article to "ABN Amro" in the August 10 section of the WP:RM page. So I restored the rebuttals to make it very, very clear that the ABN AMRO renaming proposal is contested. It was JPG-GR who first moved the ABN AMRO article to "ABN Amro", causing the renaming war in that article, so his edits should be investigated. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM is not the place to discuss the moves, it is there to record the fact that a discussion is taking place on the articles talk page. The comment would be removed from WP:RM as they should appear on the talk page of the article in question. Keith D (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Then can the ABN AMRO to ABN Amro be moved to the contested section? It is clearly being contested. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The contested section is only for those articles originally raised as uncontroversial and that are contested by another editor before the move takes place. The dated sections are for all potentially controversial moves to be recorded. After the 5-days are up then one of the people processing moves will review the details on the articles talk page and act appropriately. Keith D (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As I'm just now finding this section, thank you, Keith, for explaining what I just finished attempting to describe here. JPG-GR (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this need admin attention. All parties should discuss the name of the article on the talk page, as Keith D (who is an experienced user in this area) says. how do you turn this on 00:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

IP address of persons who edit.. Is it protected?

I have come across an edit in the article "SENSEX" dated December 4, 2007. The edit has been credited to a person by name Dchoudhary. However there is no display of IP address.

Is this hiding of IP address done on request?

In case we need to contact the person who edited for some information, is there a method?

Naavi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naavi (talk • contribs) 03:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a few things you can do. First, every editor has a talk page; you can easily leave an editor a message. Second, every article itself has a talk page - a general comment or inquiry there will see more eyes. Finally, if there is something wrong with an article, you could always change it yourself. If you're alleging some specific factual problem, the article's talk page would be the way to go. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 04:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can e-mail the user, that is, if the user has e-mail enabled in his or her preferences. But that user has been inactive for quite a while, so I have doubts that the user would check his talk page at this time. It would be best emailing the user if they have it enabled in his preferences if you really need to talk to the user. But I don't think it would be necessary and I see no need to, IMO. But like what was said above, you can change it yourself or discuss it on it's talk page. -- RyRy (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Is this hiding of IP address done on request?" - All IP addresses of users who are logged in are hidden. Only a handfull of people have access to that information and they are required to abide by the Privacy Policy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war

Some more eyes on this, if you please. At the moment we're not doing too badly (semiprotection has helped, and the lede has vastly improved overnight) but we need some more attention to stop the article turning into a complete Russian-nationalist-dominated mess and to enforce WP:TALK and WP:SOAPBOX on the talk page as far as both sides are concerned. Already this has caused a couple of threads at WP:AN3. Do not fully protect, it's too high-profile and the war itself is still in flux. Just block the edit-warriors. Be warned: banned user M.V.E.i. (talk · contribs) has been targeting this article with socks. Block anything that looks like him on sight. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Tskhinvali isn't getting as many edits, but might also need some eyes. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted both. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Neıl ☄ 12:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncharacteristically, I'm unwatching for a while; it's getting too much. Someone else step up. El_C 13:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Watching. Papa November (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR block for User:Naurmacil

• , , rv Gbentley x3
• , , rv Numlockfishy x3
• rv Russavia

Many more reverts since then. Blocked for 3 hours. Papa November (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User is requesting unblock. Please could someone else take a look? If you want to unblock him, I won't be offended! At the moment, I'm just trying to catch anyone who appears to be edit warring, so I'll focus on that. Papa November (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was reviewing this already. I'm going to unblock, but on a short leash and with some warnings. Tan ǀ 39 15:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

SPA's

I've noticed several accounts just being used to participate in discussions on the talkpage, take for instance this account and this account. Is this allowed, to have accounts being created so they can be solely used to participate in certain discussions? D.M.N. (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can't force accounts to edit other articles. If you suspect sockpuppetry, start a report. Tan ǀ 39 16:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I'm rather ambivilent about Spylocked: what is Misplaced Pages's policy on individual items of spyware? Further, if it is notable, it is in quite bad state and has been for over a year. Would appreciate others' opinions.--Christopher (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is wholly unreferenced at present, and is lacking in any real assertion of notability. I don't think it quite meets speedy deletion standards, particularly as there are some references out there (see ), but the place to go is WP:AFD. Neıl ☄ 11:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check please

I'm a relatively new admin, and up until now, any admin actions I've taken have been a result of seeing reports on places like C:CSD and the like. However, I have carried out my first deletion and spam block just from what I've seen rather than from what has been reported. I saw an advert on User:Adtrends, and deleted it (no links). As the name matched that of a company, I blocked the username too, without giving warning (no other contributions, just that spam advert)

Could someone please check my actions and level of block, and let me know if I was being overly harsh with the type of block I used? Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks good. bibliomaniac15 16:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No problems here - Tan ǀ 39 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! StephenBuxton (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fclass blocked for a year

This will also automatically give him another chance in 12 months, but I'd like input. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer it to stay at indef myself - his attitude doesn't seem to of changed. My fear is that in a years time he'll just be disruptive again. D.M.N. (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

He may be, yes. Perhaps a community ban would be more fitting? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think any further time spent on our part is a waste. A year is fine, if he comes back and continues, we'll indef then. Tan ǀ 39 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If someone comes back from a year's block and is disruptive, we should trust the people who will be around then to deal with the matter appropriately. The real question is under what circumstances would an unblock request be granted. For a community ban, you'd also have to go through the contributions and gather the evidence into one place. Carcharoth (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, this is why I blocked for a year, nothing else will need to be done for 12 months. A ban would be more open to unblock requests. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Eschoir

I bring to your attention this user, who has a long history of disruptive editing, and was involved in an Arbcom case last year. He is currently edit-warring on Eucharist, which he has flooded with nonsensical OR/POV-pushing material. Would it be appropriate to file an arbitration request here? Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Without delving into it any farther, you've violated WP:3RR there with four reverts in 24 hours (1, 2, 3, and 4). Please stop edit waring there. The same goes for Eschoir, though he has not violated 3RR quite yet. lifebaka++ 17:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The reverts you listed as mine were made by two different people. Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)