Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:55, 24 October 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:Likebox and tendentious re-insertion of original research

I apologize for the length of this post; the incident has been on and off for several years, so a thorough description is necessarily somewhat long. Brief summary: this is essentially a case of "I didn't hear that" regarding WP:OR. Discussion has been attempted several times to no avail, and so I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to review the situation.

User:Likebox (talk · contribs) has, in several incidents since 2007, inserted what he calls "modern proofs" into the articles Halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. These were removed because they give original interpretations of the material that cannot be sourced to the literature on the subject. Likebox acknowledges that his motivation is that he feels that the literature should have been written in a different way:

• "There is nothing wrong with the proofs, except that they are different than the usual textbook presentations."
• : "I agree that textbooks do not often mention quines in this context, but I feel that this is a pedagogical mistake."
• : "The modern "literature" is textbooks, which are written by a different process than research papers, and are not generally very well written."

These arguments are parallel to the arguments he made in 2007, such as "Misplaced Pages is a place where certain questions need to be resolved. What constitutes a valid recursion theory proof is one of those questions. ... Textbook proofs are reworked by secondary authors, and they are, as a rule, the worst proofs in the literature."

Numerous attempts have been made to resolve this via discussion. Some of the older discussions are at:

• Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems/Archive 3 (November 2007, starting with the section "modern proof")
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Formal statement redux (November 2007)
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#What Is A Rigorous Proof? (November 2007)
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Likebox edits (March 2008).

Likebox acknowledges that, when he inserted this material before, it did not gain consensus . He now says he is making the edits to make a point, to press his case for a proposed guideline .

When Likebox inserted the material again this month, the matter was raised at

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Halting_problem_and_Likebox
• Misplaced Pages:NORB#Halting_problem_and_Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

Several editors in these two discussion pointed out that the novel proofs should not be added , , , (not counting those who said this the last time it was added), and consensus is against including the material that Likebox has added. Nevertheless, Likebox reverted his edits again today . Likebox has said he plans to continue doing this .

Because the consensus against adding this material that developed both in past discussions and in the more recent discussions has failed to convince Likebox to stop adding this material, I would like to ask some uninvolved administrator to review the situation. Likebox appears to be a productive editor apart from these two pages, so perhaps a topic ban would resolve the continued disruption he brings to those pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What is exactly the problem with including a novel derivation that is more accessible (apart from it violating the usual wiki rules)? Novel derivations, albeit usually quite simple derivations, are given in many wiki physics and math articles. Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC

The issue here is not that Likebox is expanding or rewriting proofs from the literature in his own words. The problem is that Likebox is simply ignoring the literature, and rewriting everything the way he wishes the literature was written, As I said, this has already been discussed at great length, which is why I am bringing this here, since Likebox has apparently ignored numerous explanations of WP:NOR over a period of years. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but what Likebox is not doing is modifying the standard proof that is in the article, he is adding a new section for a "modern proof". At least that is what I see here. The way this is written suggests that this actually is the modern proof, while in fact it is Likebox's proof. To me that would be the main problem with the text and not any OR policies (I've violated OR on similar grounds in many articles).

If it were up to me, I could live with a rewritten version of Likebox's text such that it is immediately clear that it is an alternative proof that can only to be found here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Right: the text suggests it is the modern proof, while it is really simply Likebox's original interpretation of how the theorem "should" be proved. But if this alternative proof can only be found on Misplaced Pages, then it violates WP:V and WP:NOR. This has been explained to Likebox by numerous people, which is why I opened a thread here. Simply pointing out that the proof is not permitted because of WP policies has not discouraged Likebox from adding it over and over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, Iblis? That would make it a textbook case of WP:OR. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

CMB, I think Likebox would argue that the whole point of the proof is to make Gödel's theorem verifiable from first principles to interested Misplaced Pages readers. The proof itself is then not the main subject, it is merely an argument that shows why Gödel's teorem is true. That's also how I have defended including original derivations in other wiki articles. But you can make the proof itself to be the subject of the article that then has to be verifiable itself from citations to the literature.

I agree that a consensus needs to exist among the editors before this can be done. An alternative could be that Likebox creates a Fork of the article. He can then write up his proof there, but then in such a way that it is clear that the article is an accessible self contained proof that is not similar to what can be found in the literature.

JoshuaZ, In practice we do allow original derivations in wikipedia even though, strictly speaking, this violates OR. I raised the problem a few times on the OR talk page and I was always told that I could invoke IAR. The OR policy was not going to change any time soon to legalize what was going on on a small number of pages. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if we were to allow OR in this case there's nothing resembling either a consensus to do so. Indeed, all the regular math editors who have weighed in don't want this included. As such an individual who has not weighed in let me add that I agree. Indeed his presentation if anything obfuscates what is going on in Godel's theorem. The primary issue that we should be discussing in this thread is what to do with this user not whether the content should be included. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We could tell Likebox to put his proof for the moment on a subdirectory of his talkpage so that he can work on it to make it acceptable from a purely mathematical perspective (disregarding OR). That would solve the immediate problem. The OR issue can be dealt with later. Count Iblis (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Count Iblis, 1) Misplaced Pages, including Misplaced Pages user space, is not a venue for developing original proofs of anything (some synthesis from published proofs is necessarily accepted, but that's not what we're talking about here). If Likebox wants to publish new proofs, that's what journals and textbook publishers are for. 2) As CBM says, Likebox's attempts to insert his own research into those articles has been going on for years, so a compromise involving writing them in userspace doesn't sound likely to hold up. 3) The basic problem with Likebox's "proofs" is that they are bogus (see the RFC response from 2007, particularly Hans Adler's remarks) in terms of both content gaps and presentation.

See also the declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and yourself) just a couple weeks ago where User:OMCV, a knowledgeable chemistry editor, proposed a long term block against Likebox. Likebox is highly intelligent and is fairly small fry compared with Misplaced Pages's worst problem editors, but he disrupts several specialized areas whose editors really have better things to do than deal with him. Some kind of editing restriction definitely seems to be in order. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The "declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and ) just a couple weeks ago " was declined because an amicable resolution was achieved. Likebox's derivations are useful and no different from hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. --Michael C. Price 08:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael, if Likebox and OMCV have worked out their differences, that is great, though I'd be more assured if OMCV said so directly. Likebox's derivations are not the same as "hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Misplaced Pages"--can you identify a single other proof in Misplaced Pages that so radically departs from published proofs of the same fact, in both substance and style, and has been rejected repeatedly by consensus of knowledgeable editors, but has still stayed in WP? It's true that math editors often (sensibly) go along with it when a math article says something that isn't in a textbook, as long as what is said is correct and is generally fits the standard approaches. That doesn't even slightly describe Likebox's "proof", whose basic motivation (that the textbook proofs are no good) is fundamentally wrong, in addition to the proof itself being mathematically wrong, and whose presentation in the article was just plain ugly, and was found by consensus to not be appropriate for the article. The proofs of the incompleteness theorem found in logic textbooks are perfectly good, and they are studied and understood without undue trauma by many thousands of undergraduate math and philosophy students every semester. Their only problem is that Likebox doesn't like them. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- As an involved administrator I wish to make a point. This is not an isolated incident. Likebox has been doing the same type of thing in a totally unrelated article called History wars. Another article where he has expressed a strong opinion on the, and rather than attempt to compromise over the issue and work through the edits he would like to add sentence by sentence, he has resorted to re-adding the text every so often with comments on the talk page such as

• "This means we need to have a big change, and go on from there. I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks. Likebox (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)" (see Talk:History wars/Archive_2#Large Changes/Incremental Changes, Talk:History_wars/Archive 3#Large Changes, Incremental Changes,)
• "Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"
• "Again, there is no point in talking to people like you. You must be put down by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"

No only has he made these threats but he carries them out by periodically making large changes to the article: e.g., and by insisting that large amounts of material that he has written to the talk page is not archived but each time is copied back to the start of the talk page, , he is disrupting the usual development of new conversations on the talk page.

These two disputes on articles about very different subjects are not about content, but are about how Likebox fails to handle consensus building and is disrupting the project. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Rossnixon also behaves in a similar way on the Global Warming page and perhaps also on other wiki pages. But he is not editing there very frequently, so it is not really a problem. No one is arguing that he should be banned. He is not behaving like Scibaby, neither is Likebox. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Likebox seems to be a very nice guy and generally seems to have very reasonable opinions. (Which doesn't mean that I always agree with him about everything. I don't.) He just seems to be a bit too stubborn when he realises that he is pushing against a consensus. But he is open about this and I haven't seen him use any dirty tricks. Hans Adler 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-nagging

Since some people are talking about my edits, let me try to explain. There are three accusations above about my nagging:

1. Godel's incompleteness theorems/Halting problem
2. History Wars
3. Quantum mysticism

3 was resolved by a fork, and everyone seems to be OK with it for now. OMCV has said "I can live with this text" on the forked quantum mind/body problem page. So that's done with. No more nagging.

2 is a big issue. Misplaced Pages needs to be mindful of racially offensive historiography. On U.S. history pages, this is dealt with reasonably well. On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources. I only do it when they archive the discussion, because the issues are not resolved. The nagging is just to alert any interested editor that if they wish to contest this historiography, they will find at least one supporter.

1 is the main issue, and it has come up before. Why do I keep nagging here? One reason is that I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs. This is the third time I've put it up. The first time, it stayed for months. The second time, it was deleted, but at least people understood it is correct. This time, the issues have been clarified to the point where I know everyone's position.

I don't like this consensus, not because the text I wrote is so great, but because I am pretty sure that if Misplaced Pages can't give a simple proof of Godel's theorem, it's going to be a problem for other logic articles. There are a ton of proofs in the literature that are more obscure today than they should be, because the language has not been properly modernized. The method of injury/priority is by now over 50 years old, and still is obscure enough that people are discouraged from using it.

The only editor who pretty much fully understands the text and strongly opposes it is CBM. His position is that text on Misplaced Pages should follow the consensus of textbooks. Needless to say, I think this is an absolutely terrible idea. Other editors have opposed the proof for other understandable reasons.

I do agree that there might be a some issues with the proof as written. The reason I wrote it in exactly this language is mainly because I have been "talking" this proof to people for many years, and it has ossified in my mind, but also so as to prove the Rosser version of the incompleteness theorem easily, which I don't know how to do easily in other ways. As Michael Price has said, the real issue here is that the proofs in the literature are never self-contained. They always refer you to some other theorem, and some other theorem, and this is a disservice to someone who wants to learn the proof quickly.

In these cases, the policy of WP:ESCA suggests that text that only fills in intermediate steps in a proof is OK, so long as the statement of the theorem is OK, the main idea is sourced, and the intermediate steps are verifiable from first principles. This is true of the proofs I am suggesting. I could place them somewhere else, but there is no guarantee that they will stay up. Also, I am hoping that someone who likes the proof can speak up. There used to be supporters in the past, who have drifted away (also opponents).

I believe that this issue will be resolved one day, when a clear proof of the theorem is up. Until then, I nag a little bit, very infrequently, to keep the issue alive.Likebox (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox, your statement "I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs" presupposes that people don't understand the proofs now. That is bogus: 1) if your proofs are so hard to understand, what business do you have claiming them to be better than the textbook proofs that people do understand? 2) Your notion that people other than CBM don't understand your proof is wrong. I'm sure Hans Adler understands it. I understood it (the 2007 version, I haven't bothered looking at more recent ones). I'm sure plenty of other editors involved in that article understood it too, and found it unsuitable for the article. If your proof is so great, why don't you send it to (say) American Mathematical Monthly, and if they publish it, Misplaced Pages can cite it? The issue here is not that you have bestowed on us a new and wonderfully clear proof foolishly rejected by Misplaced Pages's hidebound bureaucracy clinging to stupid rules. Misplaced Pages's more active math editors are smarter than hell and they are quite capable of ignoring rules with the best of them, when that's the right thing to do. This is not one of those times. There are other online encyclopedias like SEP, which don't have Misplaced Pages's policies against original research, because they rely on recognized expert referees to make content judgements similar to how a journal does. I don't think SEP would accept your proof, so I don't think Misplaced Pages should accept it either. If you submit it there and they accept it, then we can revisit the issue. Otherwise, stop beating the dead horse. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue of "experts" is a red herring. This is mathematics, and it is trivial to check when a proof is correct. Correctness is not the issue anymore, it is originality.

I apologize for interspersing comments: while I agree that most of the mathematically minded editors (including Trovatore and Hans Adler) did understand the proof very quickly (Trovatore noted an error in the original version of the Rosser proof within a few minutes, which I quickly fixed), there were also several very loud voices that did not understand the proof, and the debate with them drowned out any reasonable discussion for a long time. All these people are gone, and the people that remain understand that the proof is accurate.

While the proof is very easy, this is exactly why many non-mathematical people thought it must be wrong. It's too simple to be correct. The reason I started editing the page is when I saw a comment on the talk page from years ago that said "The lay person will never understand Godel's incompleteness theorem". And I thought to myself "Why not?". I expected that a simple proof would make people angry, precisely because it sidesteps a lot of notation and terminology that people who write about the theorem would like to pretend are necessary.

The question of originality is difficult to address. I know that this proof of Godel's theorem by itself is not original. The Rosser proof is borderline for Misplaced Pages, but it is not original either for a journal. You can go on, however, to prove a few new theorems in the same style, and if enough of these are found, the result might be suitable for a journal.Likebox (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your post above is mostly wrong:

1. Your proof of the incompleteness theorem is in fact not correct, in that CBM explained that it has a large gap. While it doesn't actually prove something that's false, a famous description that comes to mind is that it's not even wrong. That is, your "proof" is not a proof.
2. Checking when a proof is correct is certainly not trivial (as your own inability to do so shows), except possibly for the case when the proof is completely formalized and can be checked by computer. Quite a lot of undergraduate math education (e.g. introductory real analysis) is mostly geared towards teaching how to write and check proofs, and at this point I don't have the impression that you are so hot at it. See Thurston p. 8 for more discussion of the cultural acclimation process necessary to understand what an acceptable unformalized proof is. That acclimation is what Hans Adler was describing in his RFC response, I think, and it does not seem to me that you have absorbed it enough, thus the resistance you get. ( Remember also that Gauss famously gave the first "rigorous" proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra in 1799, only to have a gap discovered in it ~150 years later. Checking proofs is also (part of) why math journals have those referees that you sneer at. A lot of the early development of mathematical logic was precisely an attempt to pin down exactly how to check a proof. Don't trivialize that which is not trivial.)
3. As an aside, formally proving the incompleteness theorem is in fact rather complicated: see . You will see the formalization cited spent considerable effort addressing the issues CBM described and which you simply handwaved.
4. Showing non-OR-ness on the other hand is trivial: just cite a textbook or published article giving a similar proof to yours, and establish notability for it by the usual means. That you haven't given such citations is a strong sign that your proof is OR.
5. Even if your proof was completely fleshed out and checked, the amount of space you want to devote to it in the article is ridiculous. If it were published in a journal, I'd support adding a sentence to the article like "Likebox has given an alternative proof using Turing machines" with a citation, but anything more than that would be undue weight since the proof is so unorthodox. Of course that would change if textbooks and journals started switching to your style of proof in large numbers, but not until then.
6. I am glad that you acknowledge that mathematically-oriented editors other than CBM also understood your "proof". I just looked at the current version of Talk:Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems and not a single one of those editors supported inclusion. Trovatore, Zero Sharp, Arthur Rubin, and Paul August all spoke against inclusion. Hans Adler didn't weigh in, so I assume his view didn't change since last time. While a few editors like Count Iblis liked your proof, none of them as far as I can tell have shown any familiarity with the existing logic literature including the usual published proofs. With no disrespect intended to those editors (we all have our own areas of interest), the notion of deciding what to include in Misplaced Pages based on such uninformed judgement is squarely in WP:RANDY territory and is precisely what the NOR policy is designed to prevent. We are trying to write an encyclopedia whose contents are acceptable by professional standards, so while I can understand a case for inclusion if someone like CBM thinks it's ok, it's completely different if only some less informed editors (anyone unlikely to be given the responsibility of refereeing such a proof for a journal) think it's ok.
7. Also, your continued harping on the proposed ESCA guideline to shoehorn your bogus OR into Misplaced Pages is shaping up to be a strong argument against accepting that guideline. If the proposed guideline supports including your OR when informed consensus says it's bogus, the proposed guideline is no good and should be rejected.
8. Finally even if your proof is correct and backed by citations, there is more to the suitability of a given proof than mere correctness. It was a big deal when Erdős and Selberg found arithmetic proofs of the prime number theorem when there was already an existing proof, because the old proof used complex analysis which while correct was considered mathematically unsatisfying. It's of course a subjective matter, but your own proof's excursion into Turing machines for something that can be done directly with arithmetic could be seen as similarly unsatisfying. I am confident that the logicians who wrote the existing textbooks that you don't like, knew perfectly well what Turing machines are and could have written machine-based proofs if they felt like it. They used the approach they did because they found it more tasteful or appropriate. It is not persuasive seeing you attempt to substitute your own judgement for theirs. You are trying to override not only the NOR policy, but the neutrality policy as well, in wanting to present a fringe-ish proof in place of a mainstream one. That, I think, is what CBM is getting at by staying to stay with the consensus of published sources. You cannot be the arbiter of what the best of the available correct presentations is, never mind that you want to use an incorrect one.

You are one of the reasons why I lost interest in editing the incompleteness theorem article a couple years ago. CBM has a fact-based writing style where he rarely expresses personal opinion about anything, and I can't speak for him, but that he finally brought this issue to ANI after all these years makes me theorize that he is quite fed up. So, I continue to support his call for an editing restriction against you. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Hey, Mr. anon. you are totally wrong.

1. CBM's "explanation" is totally unfounded. The gap"he pretends to find is the exact embedding of a computer into arithmetic, meaning, how do you take statements like "R halts" and turn them into statements about integers. This "gap" is not a gap at all, but a painfully obvious statement which is easy to prove. It is precisely because this is much easier to prove than anything about logic that I chose the presentation that I did. CBM is resistant to doing things in any way but the textbook way. That's legitimate. But even he doesn't pretend that there is any inaccuracy in the proof anymore.
2. Perhaps it's not trivial for you, but I don't find it difficult at all, and neither do any of the editors at Godel's theorems. They have checked the proof, and all of them agree that it is correct, with the exception of Arthur Rubin, who might or might not. N.B. Gauss's proof does not have a gap in it. His proof is that the winding number of the map z->z^n + lower order is n at infinity, and winding number is additive under bisection of a region. This proof was correct, and has stayed correct until the present day, ignorant opinions nonewithstanding.
3. Proving Godel's theorem is easy--- provided you do it exactly the way I showed.
4. Blah blah OR blah blah. No proof of Godel could be considered OR today. Period. It's too well understood.
5. The amount of space is just right, since it is a complete, self-contained, easy-to-understand proof of the theorem. That is important on a page called "Godel's incompleteness theorems".
6. Yeah, yeah, but all of them now agree that it is correct. Other editors in the past have criticized it 'because they thought it was incorrect. Many of the editors who like this method are just keeping quiet. With time, consensus will become "include", because that is true. It's just a question of when.
7. Yeah. It's not obvious. ESCA takes a little while to appreciate.
8. Dude, all the current textbooks use Turing machines to prove the incompleteness theorems. You should not edit the page if you don't understand this elementary fact. It is good that you were driven away.

In fact, one of the nice things about rephrasing proofs in different ways is that it lets you see if you really understand the theorem. If you truly understand the proof, then it doesn't matter how you phrase it. In this case, the proof I am giving is just a minor restatement of the usual proof in textbooks, but making it self-contained, and not shying away from using explicit computer programs.Likebox (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox (re item 2), Stephen Smale, one of the foremost mathematicians of the past century, wrote:

I wish to point out what an immense gap Gauss's proof contained. It is a subtle point even today that a real algebraic plane curve cannot enter a disk without leaving. In fact even though Gauss redid this proof 50 years later, the gap remained. It was not until 1920 that Gauss's proof was completed.

(Citation: Smale 1981 here). Of course the gap is very famous and many others have written about it too, as you are apparently well aware. That you would consider someone like Smale to be "ignorant" and yourself to be a better evaluator of proofs shows the boundlessness of your arrogance and incompetence. As far as I'm concerned, it establishes that you have zero credibility about anything. So I've had enough, and will not bother replying to the rest of your similarly erroneous crap. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Smale is talking about the Jordan curve theorem, which states that a closed continuous curve in the plane has an inside and an outside. This theorem can be proved using the winding number of a continous curve, much as Gauss proved the fundamental theorem of algebra. To say that Gauss did not prove the Jordan curve theorem in his winding number argument is disingenuous. It is applying standards of what 20th century mathematicians find interesting to 19th century work.

In the 20th century, the Jordan curve theorem became a subject of intense study, because it was related to the formal axiomatization of topology. The proof of the Jordan curve theorem for differentiable curves is not difficult, and can be done using mathematics available to Gauss. In fact, this proof is just the winding number of Gauss. A point is on the inside of a differentiable curve if the winding number of the vector from the point to the curve is equal to 1 (or -1). The point is outside if the winding number is 0. The definition of the winding number, the proof that it is additive, and the division lemmas were well within the standard mathematics of Gauss's day.

But the proof of the Jordan curve theorem for continuous curves without assuming differentiability, is more subtle, because continuous curves can be complicated. They can have positive lebesgue measure in the plane for instance. To prove the theorem for continuous curves requires a good axiomatization of topology, which allows the winding number to be made into a homology or a fundamental group. These advances required the late 19th century axiomatization of limits and calculus, which were unavailable to Gauss.

When Smale says that Gauss had a gap in his proof, what he means is that the Jordan curve theorem, and the notion of winding number, were not properly understood in the broadest possible context until the early 20th century. But it is uncharitable at best to call this a gap in Gauss's proof. Gauss was only dealing with the winding number of a highly differentiable object, and he could have defined this winding number by an explicit integral. It is not right, in my opinion, to blame a mathematician for not focusing on the broadest possible statement of a lemma used in his proof, especially since Gauss's proof was a stimulant for the development of topology in general over the next hundred years.Likebox (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Like box you wrote: "On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources." In this ANI we are discussing a page called "History wars" which is about a debate taking place in Australia. As you threatened you would on the talk page you periodically revert the article content to a version of the text you wrote. Such threats and the actions are considered on Misplaced Pages to be disruptive, particularly when you have consistently refuse requests to go through you additions sentence and address the issues raised in those discussions. You have been asked on numerous occasions to produce sources eg:

If you have sources that you can cite showing that comparative genocide scholars have been using Tasmania as a defining example of a genocide "ever since" the 1940s, i.e. they were saying it in the 1950s, the 1960s and all the way through to the present day, let's see them. Not just vague phrases like "repeated in several sources" but give us verifiable citations, otherwise, how about you just admit you can't support your preferred wording with appropriate sources and we go on from there. Webley442 (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)— Talk:History wars/Archive 3#Genocide debate

To PBS: You are talking nonsense. It is absolutely true that everywhere outside of Australia, the Black War has been a defining example of genocide all through the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and today. The source I gave you "The Last of the Tasmanians" should have settled the issue as far as the inaccuracies in Windschuttle. This is just the latest source, in addition to Lemkin's notes, the detailed analysis of Lemkin's notes by another scholar, Rashidi's book, the countless web pages, the academic articles by Madley, the academic articles by Ryan, and the textbook on Genocide by Tatz. All these sources, and on the other side is Windschuttle, and a couple of right-wing Australian revisionists, most of whom don't contest what happened.

I urge anyone here to look over the page, the discussion, and the archived discussion. It is painfully obvious that there is no proper coverage of the majority of sources on the Black War, and there will not be so long as several editors gang up on whoever inserts it.Likebox (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox I note (and I hope others have) that you do not deny that you have repeatedly edited in your large changes to the article history wars after making threats (more than once) on the article's talk page that: "I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks." without any support on the talk page for the edits.

I did not raise the issue of edits to the history wars to open up another forum to discuss the rights or wrongs of the sources. I did it to highlight a pattern in your failure to act within the acceptable methods of consensus building in the Misplaced Pages project, which appears to span several different subjects and involve several different groups of editors. -- PBS (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You are (and have been) consistently editing against consensus in a number of articles. As Hans Adler quite generously and correctly points out, you are doing it 'in the light' and not resorting to (for example) sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry to push your agenda. That is, doubtless, to your credit. Nonetheless, you have by your own admission continued to edit against consensus and what's more pledged to continue to do so. Despite how much you would like to portray yourself as the Innocent Victim of the Big Bad Wikiocracy, (and, as an added bonus, portray those people who disagree with you as idiots who Just Don't Understand You. The very arrogance!) you are quite simply being disruptive. Period. Therefore, it's time (long past time) for sanction, an edit restriction, something. You've managed to exhaust even Carl's legendary patience. Enough is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.145.148.154 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have invited User:OMCV to comment here. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Its true that I reached text "I could live with" when trying to edit with Likebox but the process took far to long. It was a little more than two months for something that should not have taken more than two days. Honestly I think it was the threat of arbitration that ultimately pushed him into a reasonable frame of mind in line with WP policy. The text we disputed currently exists as a compromise, a compromise which I believe still contains implied OR that Likebox has "owned". Its a compromise because it isn't worth fighting over. I mostly definitely found Likebox's editing style/comments disruptive and exhausting. I made my case against Likebox's activities on quantum mysticism and it was declined in the given context. If anyone wants to review my concerns when exploring or establishing an editing pattern or history they only need to look here. I offer this comment because it was requested and my interaction with Likebox have been discussed in a few places. With that said, I do not wish to participate in the discussion further. I plan to do my best to avoid Likebox now and in the future.--OMCV (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Editing against consensus" means that I have brought the issue of Godel's theorem up once every year and a half, to see if consensus changed, and made an argument on history wars every time they tucked away the previous talk page discussion into premature archive. That's not particularly inflammatory.

OMCV and I have no more dispute.Likebox (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still editing against consensus if you add it, even once, after it's reverted. Shall we reach an agreement that you are subject ot 1RR every 2 years in regard the material you continue to add against consensus, or as to "testing the consenus". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's editing against past consensus with a goal of changing this consensus in the future. I only persist in doing this when consensus is absolutely ridiculous, and must change if this project is not going to become a joke. I shall not reach any agreement with you on anything.Likebox (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction

When I started this thread, I was not aware that there were similar issues on other pages. Now it appears that the same sort of problem has happened on other topics. Given the number of editors who have commented here that Likebox should pursue a different method, perhaps an editing restriction would be enough to resolve this thread. I would suggest the following:

If Likebox adds material to an article that is later removed with a claim that the material is inappropriate, Likebox is prohibited from adding that material again until clear consensus in favor of the material is established on the talk page of the article.

This would still permit Likebox to edit normally and discuss things on talk pages, but it would address the primary difficulty, which is that Likebox continues to insert the same material long after it is clear there is no consensus for it. Moreover, the proposed restriction still allows consensus to change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a pity. I would be in favour of an article on for instance the computer program approach to Gödel's proof. But sticking in 8k of own's idea of better pedagogy is just not right. One needs to stay reasonably close to what is actually done in published sources. He should go an write wikibooks or wikiversity if he wants to do that. And by the way I believe writing a long spiel obscures the points if any in an argument. Dmcq (talk)

I think this 0RR restriction should be limited to articles on philosophy and to articles on mathematical logic. I don't think it is necessary for articles on ordinary physics topics, like e.g. quantum field theory, special/general relativity etc.. On those type of pages, someone like Likebox repeatedly reverting the page would be ok., because from time to time cranks appear who add (subtle) nonsense and for outsiders it is not clear to see what the consensus really is (the pages are not always frequently edited). I think Likebox' professional working experience lies more in this theoretical physics direction. Perhaps the disputes we've seen with likebox is the typical case of the "arrogant theoretical physicist" trying to lecture philosophers and mathematicians (just joking). Count Iblis (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox's tendentiousness on talk pages is disruptive in its own right and I'd be happy if the restriction included it somehow, but whatever. DMCQ: Wikibooks doesn't want bogus OR either. If Likebox wants to publish his proof, he should write a journal article about it, I'm serious. (I think his present version needs patching up though). Count Iblis: I'm not involved in any physics articles but I see Likebox's antagonism of OMCV as an alarming thing, and the restriction should try to prevent recurrences of that.

Note: it looks like I inadvertently posted to this thread under two different IP addresses (my ISP connection must have reset yesterday without my noticing it), which I hope didn't cause confusion. 66.127.54.181 and this current address are both me. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this nonsense? There are two pages in question, both of which are shoddy. One page, History Wars presents a racially biased version of Australian history, the other page Godel's incompleteness theorems does not present a proof.

To Dmcq: The 8k discussion is just the latest expansion of a very short text. The short text is found on User:Likebox/Gödel modern proof. If you like it, write a short version. The reason I keep expanding it is because people keep deleting the short versions with silly comments.Likebox (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this proposal does not go far enough. Moreover, it seems to me that it's the kind of behavior we should expect from any editor and as such doesn't really amount to much of a restriction, per se. I'd also like to point out that Likebox's comportment in this very discussion has shown him to be argumentative, abusive ("It's good that you were driven away" -- really?), incivil, and most importantly unrepentant. This as well as his repeated 'pledges' (read: threats) to continue 'nagging' (read: disruptive and tendentious editing) does not bode well for the future. I think we're letting ourselves in for a world of eternal hurt if stronger steps aren't taken to curtail this churlish behavior. But, perhaps that's a discussion for a different venue than ANI (I confess, I don't know what the recourse there is).71.139.6.70 (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the way Likebox discusses the topic. The only thing is that Likebox should perhaps voluntarily stick to 1 RR on pages where he is arguing against more than one or two stablished editors. Things go wrong the moment others stop discussing the topic and start a discussion about the way Likebox is editing. Then Likebox can write something about that too and very soon one of the parties will say something that is perceive to be incivil. If Likebox would voluntarily stick to 1 RR then the others are less likely to be annoyed. The others can then more easily agree to discuss the topic of the article wit Likebox and not Likebox himself. Count Iblis (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Count. Shoehorning unsourced OR based on his belief that he can explain Godel's theorem better than Godel (or than any textbook covering the subject), or his belief that "I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books" (see long quote higher up) is adequate for shoehorning his POV into history articles, or his general incivility is not "nothing wrong". Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize I said I would stay out of this but I understand the exacerbation that 71.139.6.70 is expressing all too well. I felt that way when I was searching for support or arbitration when dealing with Likebox. I also disagree with Count Iblis on a number of issues. Likebox's problem behaviors as an editor require no provocation and make it difficult (perhaps intentionally) to discuss content, if you don't think this is true please review Quantum Mysticism's talk page and my talk page in detail. Based on discussion on this page, my experience, and a number of Likebox's own claims he plays the long game. I think any voluntary reforms will be disregarded once those who would hold him accountable have moved on (as I would like to do now). Considering all of this, I think Carl's suggestion is interesting, in the end we only want Likebox to display the "kind of behavior we should expect from any editor". The suggested restrictions should come with clearly defined and progressive sanctions. With reasonable sanctions that can be feasibly enforced Carl's proposal would be a significant restriction on Likebox's problem behaviors, which is all we really want to target. A clause concerning civility should also be added and I think it would cover the major issues. This would be much better than my original request for a long term block.--OMCV (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Or perhaps, instead of focusing on the supposed "problem behaviors", you might want to focus on the pages themselves? These "problem behaviors" are caused by persistent attempts to fix problem pages.

For "History Wars", These problems were noted by several people. Unlike the paragraphs quoted out of context above, if you look at the text I proposed for History Wars (preserved on the talk page), I presented material culled from about a dozen new sources that were each removed systematically by PBS and Webley. This coordinated editing has prevented material about the Black War from being presented on Misplaced Pages, and I urge other editors to go there, read the sources, and check for themselves.

History is different than mathematics. History must stick to sources very closely, and adhere to undue-weight religiously. Mathematics is verifiable from first principles, and can be checked by individuals without external references. This difference is the essential reason for proposing WP:ESCA. Editing on a subject which can be verified from first principles is very different than editing an article on the Punic Wars.

Regarding OMCV, he has bad feelings, because we disagreed on edits he was making. These edits were factually incorrect, were opposed by several editors, and improved as he learned more about the subject. The final text we settled on was written almost entirely by him, after he had gained enough familiarity to write accurately. This process took a long time, but produced a reasonable text.

The job I am doing here by poking at problem pages makes enemies. It is important to challenge stuff in this way, and it is important for Misplaced Pages editors to avoid intimidating other editors from challenging material.Likebox (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

These comments epitomizes our conflict. The disputed text was blatant OR; I took the time to review the relevant reference to verify that it was OR. After two months the text was reworked to the point that it fairly represented the materiality in the reference (no longer OR). Even if the language in the text is no longer inventive it is still severally out of place so Likebox can argue a thesis that isn't found in any WP:RS. It would be better if the text was just removed and I am not attached to any of the alternatives I offered they can go for all I care.--OMCV (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As it is with the History Wars article. The quote above is not taken out of context it is a discussion about sources to verify the change to the first sentence of the text that Likebox wishes to introduce. Despite repeated requests to provide sources to justify the change, he has not done so, and he ignores the provided reliable sources that disprove his changes to the first sentence, (we have never been able to progress to the second sentence). This seems to me to make the dispute over the "History wars" article to be also OR, specifically WP:SYN, and to date he does not seem to understand that. Instead he thinks he is justified in repeatedly inserting the text into the article and on placing it near the top of the talk page again when the talk page has been archived. I think that he should be restricted from putting the same text or near similar text, into any of the articles under discussion, restricted from block copying text from the archives onto the talk pages, and from initiating discussions on the same subjects. If however another editor, without his solicitation, brings up the subject on the talk page or edits in text to the article with which he agrees (again without solicitation), he should be free to support that editor in the usual Misplaced Pages consensus editing way. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it would be no problem for me to stick to 1RR. Perhaps that would satisfy everyone.Likebox (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing on a subject which can be verified from first principles is very different than editing an article on the Punic Wars. No it is not any different. Every blithering crank injecting their pet FLT proof (or these days, P=NP proof, or in your case, incompleteness theorem proof) claims that it is verifiable from first principles and dealing with them is endlessly time consuming, as you are demonstrating. That is why we don't go by verifiability from first principles--we go by verifiability from sources. If you don't like this, the right place to debate it is WT:OR, not in math articles or their talk pages or here. I would not expect a favorable reception there though. If by 1RR you mean one reversion per 24 hours, that's completely useless, since you have been at this for years. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that you cannot distinguish a crank proof from a correct proof is a sign that perhaps editing technical pages is not the best use of your time. The way to differentiate the two is to look at the proof and see if it is proving what it is saying.

The way to establish OR for proofs is to understand the proof method, and check if the ideas in the proof appear in the literature. The wrong way of doing this is to do it like "Punic Wars", by looking for a direct source for each factual statement. The factual statements generated in the course of a proof follow by logic, and are specific to the context. If you lift them from sources and put them into an article, it is nearly certain that they will become wrong statements in the new context. Only the general path is in the sources. This is what the guideline ESCA is trying to explain.

This is not to say that a bogus proof, or even a novel proof, is OK for Misplaced Pages. But the incompleteness theorem is 80 years old. The method of proof I was using is over 60 years old. The only innovation was using "print your own code" for "fixed point", and updating the computer from a Turing machine to a modern RAM machine. These are trivial modifications, which are only put in for pedagogical clarity and self-containedness.Likebox (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a matter of "distinguish a crank proof from a correct proof" it is a matter of distinguishing between a sourced proof and an unsourced proof and a sourced method and an unsourced method of proving something (see WP:OR and WP:SYN).

It is a pity that with the "History wars" article you are not willing to "looking for a direct source for each factual statement", if you did then you would not try to repeatedly to put text into the article for which you have not provided any direct source despite being repeatedly asked to do so. Legitimate requests that you dismiss with statements like the one I quoted above. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Anon, while you are welcome to participate in the debate on about WP:ESCA on its talk page, you should not vote on the proposed policies based only on the polemics of the debate here. If you take the time to read WP:ESCA, you'll see that it asks editors to be extra careful, not less careful, when editing articles. Constructive criticism is welcome. Count Iblis (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

From afar this debate appears to be one of those where WP simply does not work. This failure is inherent in a "democratic" encyclopaedia where anyone can contribute, whether they know the subject or know how to think or know how to evaluate sources. In such an environment, even supposing Likebox to be 100% right and everyone else out to lunch, Likebox cannot succeed. In this particular debate he is fortunate that a degree of civility prevails, which allows the discussion a veneer of true analysis. However, the bottom line is that Likebox cannot succeed when outnumbered, and will reach stalemate with only one opposing editor that digs in. The application of WP:ESCA will not assist in this case. The best compromise, assuming that the opposition will accept it, is for Likebox to write his own page on his alternative proof and link the the two treatments. Assuming the precepts are sourced and the result is sourced, as seems to be the case, this new article is exempt from claims of WP:SYN and WP:OR according to WP:ESCA. Likebox's argument may have deficiencies, for example, hypothetically, as being too restrictive, and on the new page views of the vocal majority to that effect can be introduced. For example, it can be said that the orthodox proof differs in respects (i) - (n), or that Likebox's argument is confined to special cases like this and that. However, readers will have access to the simpler argument and adequate indication that there exist some doubters, justifiably or not. The reader is put on notice that this is that kind of WP situation where the dust won't settle. I do not think any other compromise is out there that can mend this matter. Brews ohare (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

An editing restriction to make it easier for one faction to deal with the other is simply censorship disguised, and is not a procedure that I'd feel was desirable as a general practice. Perhaps not in this case, but in many, the majority is simply wrong, and it is far too easy to label the opposition as a nuisance or worse and try to eliminate the opposition by fiat. That does not serve WP but only the annoyed parties. Brews ohare (talk)

Very interesting. How do you feel about a single (and single-minded) editor hijacking discussion over the period of years, consuming the time of editors who know better (and have better things to do, probably) to defend against degradation of article content and dilution of quality of the encyclopedia? I suppose that doesn't bother you very much? 67.101.114.82 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A proposed policy such as WP:ESCA, mostly likely destined to become an essay, has no presidency over the policiy WP:OR. Furthermore there are three separate groups here voicing their concern over Likebox's behaviors which I will try to summarize:

1. The content Likebox adds has a strong tendency towards OR especially SYNTH.
2. A propensity to edit war and display WP:OWN.
3. Disregard for the concerns of other editors and making little effort to reach consensus.
4. Uncooperative use of rhetoric and selective understanding to avoid the substance of the debate.
5. Civility and tone issues which Likebox has called arguing forcefully.

Likebox appears to mostly be a damaging element to Misplaced Pages lately. If he can't be reformed with sanctions he should be blocked. Personally I don't think Likebox even means to create OR. I think he simply has a strong tendency toward correlating and equivocating ideas and concepts to the point that it obliterates contradictions and inconsistent data in his own mind. His name even suggests these tendencies. Armed with his "internally" consistent world view he sets about editing, campaign style, towards the truth no one else understands.--OMCV (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to OMCV: WP:ESCA is a reasoned discussion, admittedly not a guideline. But the answer to dispute is to talk about compromise. You already are leaving the arena of discussion and entering the arena of debate (i.e. scoring points, not clearing things up) with terms like "internally consistent world view" and "equivocating concepts". What do you think of the separate page notion? It is an olive branch that could resolve this argument without seeking sanctions that simply irritate even the "winners" and provide no sense of accomplishment and no service to WP readers. The new page would be available for pointed commentary as to its deficiencies and allow a reshaping of this discussion as a discussion of the alternative view, rather than a defense of the present page. Brews ohare (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Separate page notion" is called a "POV fork" and is a non-solution. Moreover, you've made it abundantly clear that you _have not_ read much of the discussion (even "from afar"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.1.184.172 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to 74.1.184.172: The proposed new page is not a POV fork if it contains different material, viz an alternative simpler proof. Your statement that it is "abundantly clear" is not helpful in suggesting specific objections, but appears instead argumentative. I'd like to point out that if Likebox is placed in the position of defending his page, that is a harder task than sniping at the existing page, and a bit of role reversal is involved that could change the dynamics of the discussion. For one thing, those opposed can relax a bit as their particular views are not under debate, but those of Likebox. Also, specific objections to Likebox arguments should be aired, and the result should lead to clarifications of Likebox's arguments, for example, a tightening of logic or a flag that certain eventualities are ignored, or certain assumptions have been made that should be explicit, etc. etc. When all is said and done, the final Likebox page either has something to say, or has become some clone of the original page that can be summarized on the main page or deleted. Brews ohare (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review POV_fork and then explain here -- with specific examples -- why giving a separate page to Likebox's idiosyncratic, non-cited, synthetic OR on a subject that is already covered in an existing article and which consensus was against inclusion of same is not a POV fork. Moreover, this ANI was brought about (Carl, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your intent) to address Likebox' _behavior_, to wit, tendentious re-insertion of material against consensus over a period spanning years. Likebox was given ample opportunity to 'defend' (or if you prefer a less 'argumentative' term 'explain' or 'support') his proposed additions on the talk page(s) of the respective article. Consensus there was against the insertion. And he persisted, and has pleged to persist. That's disruptive editing. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested that if Likebox has a simpler proof or one more accessible to the non-expert, the proposed Likebox page is not a POV fork. You can see things like this with special relativity, for example, where several different levels of treatment are separately presented. The same with quantum mechanics. The issue becomes whether the proposed Likebox page serves a purpose. Before that judgment can be made, the page has to exist.

Many of the disruptive issues that annoy you may evaporate if the new page construction becomes the focus instead of the existing page. Experiment would tell. What is there to lose? Construction of a new page would be collaborative; dogged insistence on some editing restrictions potentially limits WP treatment of the topic and promotes an approach that becomes generally used, in many such disputes, instead of cooperation. Brews ohare (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Brews ohare was recently topic banned from physics. Does this discussion relate to physics? Why is one editor who was sanctioned for tendentious editing commenting repeatedly on a discussion about tendentious editing? To me this looks like disruption or very poor judgment. Jehochman 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman: who can possibly have had more experience with tendentious editors than I?? Brews ohare (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

since Likebox has agreed to stick to 1 RR, this topic should be closed (it should have been a few days ago when he agreed with this). If you stick to 1 RR, then that leads to a far better climate on the talk pages. Consensus is far more important, so it doesn't pay to have polarized discussions.

I agree with the points that Brews is making here, not sure why Jehochman would object to his participation here. Brews (a physics professor) was, i.m.o., wrongly banned from all physics topics, even discussing physics on his own talk page was declared to be illegal. The problem with Brews was perceived to be that he dominated discussions on a talk page too much to get his way. I.m.o. that didn't have anything to do with the physics nature of the particular topic, it just happened to be the case that Brews was only active on physics pages.

Now, when people get annoyed about me dominating some topic, the typical comment I'll hear is: "Count Iblis, why don't you stick to physics?" So, i.m.o. that is something we should be able to say to Brews in such cases, but unfortunately, the topic ban makes that impossible. We can't blame Brews for sticking to his topic ban and participating in other areas of Misplaced Pages. Count Iblis (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• CBM, what you are asking for sounds like the standard revert limitation. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions for sample wording. If something is adopted, it would be best to use standard wording. Jehochman 21:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I think we need a general probation like the one D. Tombe got, rather than something like 1RR. Proposal (adapted from WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light/Proposed_decision#David_Tombe_restricted):

Likebox (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Likebox repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

This could be in addition to Carl's proposal. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, because Likebox could then fall prey to wikilawyering cranks on physics pages. Note that in the arbitration page in which Davd and Brews received restrictions, many other involved editors misbehaved to some extent. E.g. Martin's incivility was noted in the discussions, but in the end he was excused because he was dealing with a difficult crank. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox would do well to stay away from controversial material for an extended period. If a crank does emerge on Likebox's watch he could enlist you, myself, or likely any of the editor here to remedy the situation. Indefinite probation seems very reasonable to me.--OMCV (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the trend here is to gag Likebox, and proposals differ mainly in how to accomplish this aim. I'd suggest that is a very limited response to dealing with another editor, and will tend to alter the atmosphere for editing for everyone. All of us will end up battling a losing battle sooner or later, not because we're wrong, not because we have a WP:POV or whatever, but because the other editors that happen to be participating see us as a problem. Maybe they're all Engineers, or all novelists, or all nuts. Can't we come up with a cooperative solution? Isn't a test page presenting Likebox's proof a better way to go? It isn't irreversible: it's a test, for Pete's sake. Brews ohare (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What you are unable or unwilling to see is that Likebox, by his

behavior is doing EXACTLY THAT - altering the environment for other editors, to put it mildly.  And you are apparently also unable or unwilling to see that what you are proposing, temporary or not *is* a POV fork. Period. Mental gymnastics, indeed.  You ask "Can't we come up with a cooperative solution?" Clearly, in the years that his mess has dragged on, we cannot. Hence, the need for sanctions.  I don't think anyone is proposing an outright block, but are we to allow *one* editor to continue acting in this way and forcing god-knows-how-many other editors to devote time and energy -- time and energy better spent improving the encyclopedia -- constantly un-doing the damage he is causing and engaging in the same endless debates. 166.205.134.29 (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This page isn't directly concerned with Gödel's incompleteness theorems. For example, I don't believe I have ever edited there nor do I plan to edit there. The issue is an editor run amok and what to do about it. Despite this I will offer my opinion regrading your question, Brews ohare, since you have asked it more than once. A POV fork sounds like a horrible idea and I have to wonder at the mental gymnastics you must be preforming to convince yourself that you are not suggesting a POV fork. That is what happened to Quantum mysticism with Likebox creating Quantum mind/body problem to provide a home for his owned text. The point of this encyclopedia is not to provide Likebox or anyone else a blog or substitute for a peer-reviewed journal. There must be a compelling reason to split up information and satiating the ego of single editor who want to publish their synth is not a compelling reason.--OMCV (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare you wrote "Can't we come up with a cooperative solution? ". The problem is that on the history wars article, Likebox is repeatedly inserting information that he thinks is correct but he will not produce reliable sources to back up that information, and refuses to acknowledge that he is wrong even when reliable sources are produced that contradicts his point of view. How would you suggest dealing with Likebox when he writes things like this to the talk page

This page is full of crackpot history written by Webley, supported by PBS. I do not intend to cite a SINGLE SOURCE for this statement, because it is too obvious to cite. I will unilaterally assert it, again and again, until somebody fixes the problem.— Talk:History wars/Archive 3#Crackpot History

Block review of User:Interpride

• Interpride (talk · contribs) was blocked with a massive template explaining they were blocked, apparently, for making promotional edits ... and maybe their

username. If they had made their edits under another username I don't think we would have few issues with edits and certainly wouldn't have blocked. Could someone have a look and see if we can't be a little more welcoming here? -- Banjeboi 16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith bad block. I can't see that they were even warned. If they had been contacted with a request to consider WP:COI and they continued to edit in this manner, that would be grounds for a block. But this? No. A little insignificant _{(I have candy!)} 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. We need to assume good faith more often here. And by that, I mean assume good faith of the blocking administrator. JBsupreme (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Single purpose/promotional account. That's clearly obvious from the editing pattern. They were slowly turning the article in question into a promo. HalfShadow (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked the blocking admin for explanation but have not seen a response yet, I have also notified them of this thread. Being outside the situation could you point out which of their edit was actually blockable, or even disputed? They seemed to be adding extra details that are unneeded but that in and of itself shows a lack of experience on Misplaced Pages - not an effort to cause harm. -- Banjeboi 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

When you start adding 'sunshine and puppies' edits like this, you're no longer being encyclopedial, you're being promotional. HalfShadow (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This block appears entirely appropriate. Aside from the generally promotional editing, the user was also adding copyvio text, with an often heavily promotional tone, cut and pasted from the organization's own website. Note that this edit corresponds to this link and this edit corresponds to this link and this edit corresponds to this link . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not going to persuade many people that this type of account should not be blocked. It's a problem when people's first edits are about the organisation where they work (rather than blatant spamming, these are COI edits) and they get blocked, sometimes hardblocked. But blatant advertising will always be blocked very quickly and you're unlikely to change people's minds about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like a reasonable block - organization name + promo edits normally translates to a hard block, and there's at least one edit that reads somewhat promotional. Nonetheless, it would be optimal if the user was contacted beforehand, since this is not blatant spamming. Tim Song (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's my point I guess. Instead of telling this user their name needed to change and their editing smacked of promotionalism we blocked them with no dialog whatsoever. That seems counter-intuitive to dealing with newbies and actually a bit hostile even if intended to curb promotional-like editing. Where's the civility? Where's the effort to explain why the edits were flawed before the indefinite block? -- Banjeboi 18:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a good block. One should be expected to only go so far with regards to not biting newcomers. I highly doubt that this person (assuming this is not a role account, which is likely the case anyways) was interested in anything else except staking ownership to the page and turn the page into a mirror of its website, which is not what we're here for.

With that said, I haven't looked at all the contribs to check for copyvios or blatant spamming, but a softblock was warranted at the very least. MuZemike 18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block. This is exactly what I would have posted to WP:UAA. Sorry Benjiboi, I understand why you'd be unhappy about this kind of block but a username that indicates representation/affiliation with the article subject, combined with edits like "Members of our organization are dedicated volunteers who organize and work to put on Pride events all over the world" justify the block and are in total compliance with our policies and guidelines. -- Atama頭 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this was a good block - but someone (Benjiboi?) could engage with them in more detail to explain why what they were doing was not appropriate on Misplaced Pages, and help mentor them through engaging more productively with a new account as an individual person not trying to act as an official organizational PR person. This seems the classical "didn't know better" rather than "malign intent", and those people can often simply be educated. Benjiboi, you up for that? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This was a good block indeed. I think this thread can be closed now. Keep up the good work, blocking admin. JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh. I find this to be a case of using username blocks like a roll of duct tape -- that is, a low-quality solution to a variety of problems it wasn't originally designed to solve. It's a topic of ongoing debate on WT:U whether it's appropriate to instantly username block someone just because their username points out their COI. This was a pretty typical example of such a block, so the block is defensible, but I'm hardly going to applaud the blocking admin for their blunt solution either.

Talking to the user about COI and asking them to change their name would have accomplished the same result, with just a tiny bit more effort, and without making Misplaced Pages look as belligerent toward outsiders as it usually does. rspεεr (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

LIttle word from the blocking admin--I have always personally taken a hard line on spamming. Whenever I see a user making promotional edits to an article whose title matches his username, it's almost always an automatic block. Blueboy96 03:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Noleander

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Having read this overlong thread, I see a lot of heat and little light. Please remember that ANI is not a a forum for dispute resolution but a venue for requesting and discussing incidents requiring rapid admin action (such as a block), which appears to be neither requested nor required here. If people perceive a specific editor's contributions as persistently problematic, they should pursue WP:DR and possibly open a WP:RFC/U.  Sandstein  19:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A thread regarding User:Noleander has only just been archived. However, new evidence has now emerged that should be brought to this board.

Earlier this month, Noleander created an article in this form which contains material under the heading Michael Medved that is plagiarised from the Neo-Nazi Stormfront site . Noleander claims here and here that he didn't know the material originated with Stormfront and says he plagiarised it from an equally anti-Semitic article at Radio Islam . He still claims that the material was not a copyvio despite the fact that not only were the same quotes used as in the articles at Stormfront and Radio Islam but also the same linking phrases "Medved continued" etc. also are used.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I wrote that article, and yes, I cut-and-pasted some text from the RadioIslam web site. I was trying to get some quotes from Michael Medved from a magazine article he wrote. As I put the text into the article Jews and Hollywood, I failed to proof-read, and failed to remove text that was between the Medved quotes. That was a mistake, and I profusely apologize. I have no idea who originally assembled Medved's quotes in that manner: RadioIslam? Stormfront? There is probably no way of ever knowing. In any case, it is appropriate to include a few quotes from Medved's article ... that is not a copyright violation. As for using RadioIslam as a place to find material? Yes, it is a rabid site, but it does contain material that is often not found elsewhere. I did make a mistake, and I apologize. However, I must point out that I believe this ANI (and the other ANI accusing me of antisemitism) is misguided. They are attempts to ensure that certain material is not included in this encyclopedia (particulary the Jews and Hollywood article). Accusations of minor CopyViolations and Antisemitism are distractions intended, I believe, to distract from the real issue at hand. My perception is that Misplaced Pages is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship. Looking at the history of some articles, there appears to be a concerted effort to ensure that some notable material never appears in this encyclopedia. ANIs like this one are one tactic (and it works rather well, I must say :-) Im willing to engage in a discussion on whether that article belongs in this encyclopedia. In fact, I have been positively (and cheefully :-) engaged in that discussion in the AfD for that article. That is where the focus needs to stay. --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK Anti-Semitism is never a good idea, and these 2 articles REEK of it...Modernist (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• They are both up at AfD, let your conscience do the talking. -- Avi (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Avi, actually I voted delete in both instances. Anti-Semitism with a pretty new name is still nauseating...Modernist (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I'm involved in that I voted to keep the relevant article at AfD. I don't necessarily think this ANI report was made in bad faith as Noleander does, but I understand his reaction, as this is the latest in a barrage of accusations, and the consensus has been that most that occurred prior to this were unfounded. He's only human. Overall I've actually been struck by Noleander's exceptional level-headededness in the face of rabid bad-faith assumptions (of the type that can be seen above). He's in fact been much more level-headed than I've been throughout this ordeal. One need only read through the AfD to see that (if one has the patience; it's pretty long). Since the copyvios have been corrected, Noleander has apologized, and the article is at AfD, I think the matter is settled for now as far as ANI goes. Equazcion (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• At this point, I agree we should not be discussing User:Noleander. However, we should exercise our options as participants in this project to accept or reject the article, completely independent of the original author, who may have had the best interests of all at heart. This is a referendum on the article, its content, its structure, its focus, and how it represents the project as a whole. My own opinions can be seen on the AfD page, as can those of many others, on both sides, which is why I suggest we all let our conscience do our talking. -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I really must disagree with Avi in this situation. I think this thread should specifically focus on User:Noleander. I won't deny that his comments betray an educated and articulate human being. However, these same comments show someone who is incredibly anti-Jewish. I don't think this is assuming bad faith in the least. Would anyone stand for a similar article that was solely created to angrily decry the involvement of Muslims in organized crime in India? Or the petty crime committed by aboriginals in Australia? No, it would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Noleander has explicitly stated that his objective here is to provide negative information about Jews in order to counteract Jewish bias on Misplaced Pages. To that end he has largely provided copyrighted information from Stormfront and radio Islam.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Im not anti-jewish, or anti-palestinian, or anti-this, or anti-that. I simply view WP as a very valuable asset for people around the world. I also think it has several "blind spots" where it is missing important material, due to political correctness. I first noticed this in regards to the articles on the Mormon church: there was no mention of they way blacks were treated by that church from 1850 to 1970. I decided to jump in and try to add some material there, and after two years of back-and-forth with some very tenacious editors, I think those articles are now balanced. It stikes me that the topic Jews and Hollywood is under-represented in this encyclopedia. So I jumped in, wrote an article, and put it in the Antisemitism category: not trying to hide anything. The canard "Jews Control Hollywood" is notable, but is missing from this encyclopedia. The issue, again, is not an editor, or the editor's motivation: it is absence of notable information in this encyclopedia. Every minute we spend talking about editors motivation, is a minute we are not improving the articles. Hmmmmmm ... or is that the goal of these ANIs? --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that actually is the point of ANI. Article content is generally discussed in other places. To Moshe, I'd ask him to please provide diffs for the accusations he's made about Noleander's spoken intentions. Equazcion (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I cant speak for Avi, but he may be refering to my post above, where I said "My perception is that Misplaced Pages is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." --Noleander (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Scroll up a bit and also look at many of his comments here- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Misuse of antisemitic accusations and here Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"I simply view WP as a very valuable asset for people around the world." Do you really think this helps us move towards a resolutuion? Is there any reason why an anti-Semite or a racist or homophobe or sexist would not believe this? "I..." (this is me speaking, I just figured I do the Sandra Bernhardt routine first) "...I come here only because of my love for humanity." The problem is that in a few days you put up at least two articles that cut and pasted material directly from a neo-Nazi website and from an anti-Semitic Islamic (no, the two are by no means identical!) radio website, to create articles that - without any kind of scholarly analysis of framing, strung together anti-Semitic canards. If you care so much about Misplaced Pages, why didn't you create an article on gays controlling Broadway? Or on Jews controlling Wall Street? Or on the way that accusing someone of being a homophobe is a way of silencing them? Or how accusing someone of being a racist is a way of silincing them? You see, it is the highly selecteive nature of your choices that raises concerned. You view WP as an asset for people around the world? Well, okay, then why don't you work on an article on embryology? Or on urban renewal projects? Or dadaism? I mean, there are so many articles you could work on if you are motivated just by your passion for helping people, right? Why these? Now here is something strange - a number of times I called attention to the need fo ranalysis and framing, how historians and sociologists for example analyze anti-Semitic canards to reveal something about anti-Semites or about that period in time. You wrote back something like you are not an expert in sociology or history. Well, then, here is another question: why write articles on topics in which you have no expertise? I mean, we all agree Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, right? But shouldn't we edit articles on topics we know something about? Why do you specifically pic topics on which you are ignorant and then use Misplaced Pages to spread um, well, your "knowledge" about these topics? Why?

In fact, here you are lying about your motives. On the AfD pages you have stated that your concern is that accusations of anti-Semitism are a form of censorship and your motive is to publicize this. Well, dude, that is a violation of WP:SOAP and you already admitted to it. And of course, only an anti-Semite complains that accusations of anti-Semitism are meant to censor. Look at it this way: if someone accused of anti-Semitism is an anti-Semite, surely you would agree that there is nothing wrong with accusing them of anti-Semitism, right? And if someone is not an anti-Semite, well, all they have to do is say so right? If someone is not an anti-Semite, it is always very easy for that person (or countless others) to say "No, I am not anti semitic" and to go on talking. I know of no case in which anyone ever accused of anti-Semitism was somehow prevented from speaking. Of course, if many people are convinced that someone is an anti-Semite, they are under no obligation to listen, are they? Well, Noleander, do you thinkg that people's hands should be cufed and their ers fordibly turned to the loud-speakers so that they have no choice but to listen? You also brought up "self-hating Jews" and provided two examples. I know people who will not go to hear Noam Chomsky speak. But I have neve heard him complain that he was somehow "silenced." Can you clarif your agenda, I mean, besides wanting to sprinkle the world with sugar and make everyone happy? I mean, something specific and to the point?

If your problem is that some topics are "censored" at Misplaced Pages, creating articles to soapbox is not the solution. Do you think that every AfD is an attempt to censor? Do you think Misplaced Pages should allow anti-Semitic articles? I am sure you have a lot more to say in response but I'd appreciate yes/no answers to at least these two questions. Then I would really like you to address two points: (1) concrete examples to illustrate this: "My perception is that Misplaced Pages is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship" and (2) how, precisely, do these two articles reverse that censorship? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstien, what constitutes an anti-semitic article? We have an article on anti-semitism. I don't see how you can say with such conviction that this particular article is any more "anti-semitic" than that. Is it the title? What is it, specifically? I'm asking this question in anticipation of a discussion that somehow does not belong at the AfD, but if your issues are content-related, this discussion probably belongs there. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

From my limited experience with Peter Cohen, I don't believe the accusation can be made that he started this discussion in an effort to get to the article by targeting the author; if I'm not mistaken he had already been defending the author against charges of this kind, and is on record as being highly sensitive to this issue. My feelings as to the rest of this are mixed. Noleander apologizes for where he got the material, as I think is appropriate. Besides that, I would really recommend to avoid this analogizing from contentious article topic to editors, which I think could hardly be a worse instinct in our attempts to have neutral policy-based discussions. Noleander's comments in general suggest to me someone who admittedly is not especially familiar with these topics. In my view that is relevant, along with his apparent lack of familiarity with various aspects of Misplaced Pages. If an editor pushes through these topics over years and shows an inability to edit appropriately, then the editor should face sanctions. If an editor comes in and makes some initial mistakes, then I don't believe that this can be the initial response. It isn't that you know whether one will turn into the other; it's that you can't know on so little information. In all I think this is a legitimate point to have raised, but otherwise I agree in full with Avi on the general way forward. Mackan79 (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, I answer your questions in the paragraphs above. If Noleander simply admitted that the article he created were ill-planned and poorly-executed, and perhaps ill-conceived, I would have let the matter rest. I and many other editors have suggested a variety of encyclopedic ways that most if not all of the themes raised in the articles could be beter handled with different research and in other existing articles - so this is not a matter of censorship. But rather than accept the constructive criticisms offered, Noleander just dug in her heels, repeating that articles critical of Jews get censored at Misplaced Pages, which makes two serious errors: first, it misrepresents the lack of tolerance for anti-Semetic articles with a rejection of articles on topics critical of Jews, and second, she is blind to the number of articles here that include criticisms of Israeli persecution of Arabs or occupation of the West Bank. Read Jean-Paul Sartre's Anti-Semite, Jew, as he pointed out, it is the anti-Semite who has the persecution complex. Many editors have suggested othe ways Noleander's concerns could be handled at Misplaced Pages, as opposed to these two very offensive articles. Noleander, rather than accomplishing her ends without offending, prefers to demand that the offensive articles stay in, flip-flopping on her motives as necessary. I think that speaks volumes. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me make a proposition: This encyclopedia already contains many articles on canards like Kosher Tax, Well poisoning, The Franklin Prophecy, etc. Oddly, the encyclopedia does not contain any mention of the "Jews Control Hollywood" canard ... not even one sentence in Antisemitic canards. That is an omission in this encyclopedia. My proposition is: let's work together to add that material, either in a dedicated article, or as a section in Antisemitic canards. I'll be happy to cooperate with you on that task. What do you say? --Noleander (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Others have already proposed that the Hollywood Canard be discussed in the Antisemitic Canards article - if you are now agreeable I can't fault you for that! I do wonder why you did not do this, originally. It sounds reasonable to me. However, I have no expertise on this and only make contributions when I have expertise or have done the research. If you have time to read the books and articles on the topic, you'd certainly be helping the project, maybe there are others you can enlist. Also, at 23:05, 22 October 2009 I asked a series of specific questions I would still appreciate your answering, to help clarify things. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That was easy. So the problem was that he created separate articles? I'm very confused, but also relieved. Equazcion (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mackan79 is correct that up to the point that User:Hipocrite unearthed the word-for-word quotation of material from anti-Semitic hate sites, I had been defending Noleander from editors who were making what seemed to me to be baseless attacks on him implying that he is anti-Semitic. I do believe that accusations of anti-Semitism are often made for ulterior, opften Zionist, motives and as a result of acting on this oopinon I have ended up on the Jewish Internet Defense Force's list of Wikipedians they dislike. Indeed, the last time I was mentioned on this page was by a JIDF activist complaining about me.

However, now that I know that Noleander was quoting material verbatim from a blatantly anti-Semitic article - the Radio Islam article is no less bigoted than the Stormfront one - my stance has changed. I have brought this to this page because I think Wikipedians need to ask themselves whether an editor who plagiarises material from hate sites is someone we want anywhere near a serious encyclopedia that has a key policy advocating a neutral point of view based on the contents of high quality mainstream publications.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're making it sound like plagiarizing material from hate sites has been a long-term practice for Noleander. He made a mistake and apologized already. You've made mistakes before, right? Why not wait and see if this actually proves to be a pattern, before assuming that it will? Equazcion (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

But he also treated material from the notorious Institute for Historical Review as if it were a reliable source. And you forget that his cconduct was already ringing alarm bells for some editors before this specific cribbing from hate sites was identified. This user has been taken to ANI before and his conduct should be treated as a serious nthreat to Misplaced Pages not swept under the carpet by people who seem to believe that fool me twenty-eight timesd still means ni shame on me.--Peter cohen (talk)

• S1Rubenstein: Yes, someone in the AfD did propose a section in the Antisemitic canard. I immediatly concurred that that was an acceptable way to go (I would find the diffs, but I dont have 30 minutes to hunt thru the AfD :-). Not only did I agree to a section (in lieu of a full article), but when a different proposal was made to broaden the article to "Jews and Hollywood" I agreed that such a change was fine. I'll tell you what: If you will create a "Canard: Jews Control Hollywood" section in Antisemitic canard now (I mean in the next day or two, when you have time) I will then help edit that section in a neutral and cooperative manner. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

noleander break

Noleander, I'm very glad that you've agreed to merge parts of the Jews and Hollywood article with the article about Antisemitic canards. On that note, I disagree that Misplaced Pages is overly censorious of antisemitism. Legitimate criticisms of specific people or organizations do belong in Misplaced Pages and are placed there. However, not all criticisms are legitimate, and Misplaced Pages is not a place to spread false accusations or weasel worded criticisms. Criticisms that are not based on facts from a reputable source, such as comments about Jews from RadioIslam, should not be presented as facts in Misplaced Pages. Do you understand my point? --AFriedman (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I don't understand your point. Unless you're actually saying Misplaced Pages shouldn't say that radioislam said certain things. Or Misplaced Pages shouldn't say that certain people accused certain other people of things. I rather think those do belong here. The fact is, these accusations were made. The accusations themselves being ridiculous doesn't change that. Equazcion (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on whether or not those things being said are notable, and said by reliable sources, doesn't it? Jayjg 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. What sources of questionable reputability say can be in the articles about those sources, with information about why their reputability is questionable. What RadioIslam says about Jews (and why, and what is wrong with it) can be in the article about RadioIslam, but not presented as a fact in an article about Jews. --AFriedman (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Noleander, I'm curious about the sources you've been using. I've looked at the original article, and even the current one, and it appears that you are citing many different sources. You've already stated that you got the Medved quote from the antisemitic website Radio Islam. Given that that was the source, and not Moment, and in light of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and WP:RS, can you explain why you have attributed the quotation to Moment, and how you know the quote is accurate? Also, in that vein, I note your original version of the article, for example, also cited Vogue when quoting Dolly Parton and Victor Marchetti's defunct newsletter "New American View" when quoting Victor Marchetti. Did you actually read those sources? Or is it possible that you actually read the material on, say, a Holocaust denial site like the Institute for Historical Review, which you also cited in your article? Say, on this page: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n5p14_Marchetti.html? Also, you've quoted J.J. Goldberg's Jewish Power: inside the American Jewish Establishment fairly liberally. Do you actually own the book? Have you read it? Jayjg 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Jayjg: Regarding the sources. Medved and Marchetti quotes were from Radio Islam web site and Institute for Historical Review web site. Dolly Parton was not directly from a hardcopy of Vogue, but from Washington Post article here. Yes, I own a copy of J. J. Goldberg's book and have read it. Regarding the WP:RS policies, I was not familiar with those rules, but I'm quickly becoming familiar with them :-) It is clear that when material is indirectly quoted from a web site, the fact that it came from a web site must be in the citation ("... quoted in .."), since the nature and reliability of the site is may make the material significantly less reliable than if the quotes were directly from the original magazine/journal. Based on the citation rules, the citations for the magazine sources were incorrect, and that was a mistake on my part. --Noleander (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

noleander break 2

Equazcion, you've been quite stalwart in your defense of Noleander, insisting that he has, at worst, made a few minor and innocent mistakes, and that those who have raised concerns are subjecting him to "rabid bad-faith assumptions". But is that really an accurate assessment of the concerns raised? As is clear, Noleander has created articles using quite obviously antisemitic sources, such as Radio Islam and the Institute for Historical Review. He has claimed that he was, for example, with the "Jews and Hollywood" article, merely attempting to describe an antisemitic canard. Yet, rather then an exposé, those assessing the article found it to be a one-sided original-research/coatrack essay attempting to support the canard. Noleander has stated quite plainly that "My perception is that Misplaced Pages is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." He himself believes that there is a conspiracy to suppress/censor negative information about Jews; exactly the thesis of many of the (often antisemitic) sources used in the articles he created. And he's certainly been as good as his word; contributions he makes to articles relating to Jews appear to be almost uniformly negative. So, what are we all to make of this behavior? Should we, as you seem to propose, view it as essentially neutral, normal Misplaced Pages editing, with a minor mistake or two? Or can we at least state that it is "anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent"? Jayjg 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Noleander was describing a de-facto censorship, rather than a premeditated one. Some of his latest statements might be interpreted as otherwise, but I feel that's more a product of his frustration than anything else, and this frustration is being felt on both side -- evident from certain lengthy comments by certain individuals who are quite visibly emotional regarding this topic. He used anti-semitic sources because that's what the article was about: a collection of instances of anti-semetism. You generally find such instances at anti-semitic sources. I do believe the copyvio incidents were isolated, and see no reason to believe otherwise. Describing anti-semetism, and pointing it out, and even seeking them out in an attempt to fill a perceived void in Misplaced Pages's content, are not in themselves anti-semitic acts. "those assessing the article" are a rather large group of people, and their assessments fall on both sides on the debate. Equazcion (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "Noleander was describing a de-facto censorship"; what "de facto censorship"? Also, why on earth would you use and rely on unreliable antisemitic sources to describe antisemitism? It's not as if there aren't hundreds of scholarly books and thousands of scholarly articles on the topic! In addition, he doesn't apper to have been "describing anti-semetism" at all; rather, as the comments at the AfD point out, he was, at best, regurgitating it, and at worst, promoting it. And finally, regarding "those assessing the article", aside from a couple of stalwart defenders like you, who appear to have completely ignored/denigrated the valid concerns raised, the assessments are strongly to the side of "POV OR coatrack essay". Jayjg 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Noleander perceives a void in Wikpedia's content. He called it censorship, because he saw it as confined to a certain type of information. In that sense it would be de-facto, in that it wasn't intended necessarily, but is nevertheless the perceived effect. I'm not sure how many scholarly works there are on Jewish leadership in Hollywood; I hope there are hundreds as you say, for the sake of the article. Nevertheless, the lack of scholarly works present, and the use of sub-par sources, could be attributed — and normally would in the majority of other situation — as lack of experience with Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards. The "comments at AfD", again, are not proof of anything, as there are comments on both sides of the debate. I admit there are a majority of delete votes currently, but not necessarily with the rationale you describe, and a majority doesn't necessarily mean a correct conclusion. I've often stood in the minority opinion and have no qualms about it. You dismiss those who disagree with you as having completely ignored valid reasoning, but they of course feel the same of you, so saying such things gets us nowhere. Equazcion (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of works on antisemitism, which is what you are claiming Noleander was attempting to highlight (rather than promote). As for an alleged "lack of experience with Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards", Noleander has been editing since February 2006; "newbie" excuses won't wash. And I state that you appear to have completely ignored/denigrated the valid concerns raised, because that it what you have quite obviously done, in your own words, when you dismissed the concerns of others as "rabid bad-faith assumptions". Jayjg 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There were some rather rabid bad-faith assumptions, but I suspect we're referring to different comments entirely. There were also some quite valid concerns raised, and I respect them. I'm not saying Noleander is a newbie, but his experience with article creation or sourcing could be lacking. I'm assuming that's the reason, because I'm supposed to, until a longer-term pattern reveals itself. Equazcion (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, with regard to this: "He himself believes that there is a conspiracy to suppress/censor negative information about Jews" -- He's not posting negative information about Jews. He's posting instances where notable figures have said or written negative things about Jews. There's a huge difference. Equazcion (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How so? If one edits Misplaced Pages solely for the purpose of highlighting or promoting negative commentary about an identifiable group that has been subject to serious discrimination, is that not, in effect, the same thing? If one were, for example, to edit Misplaced Pages for the stated purpose of highlighting negative comments made by notable figures about African-Americans, and just happened to use a lot of racist sites as sources, would we all be saying "innocent mistake, no harm, no foul"? Jayjg 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is that very perception of "promotion" that I debate. I don't see any promotion here. The language used was matter-of-fact, reporting incidents without judging them to be positive, or negative, for that matter. I don't see any "highlighting", either, although we may have different definitions of that word. If one were to edit Misplaced Pages for the stated purpose of correcting an imbalance in Misplaced Pages by adding negative comments made by notable figures about African-Americans, I would not object to that or feel particularly offended. If he happened to use a lot of racist sites as sources for said endeavor, I would let him know about Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards. If he apologized for using said sources, I would say "Thank you for understanding", and then I would cease speaking; and wait and see if it happened again. Equazcion (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The language used was matter of fact? Not according to large majority of those who !voted at the AfDs, and found them to be inherently POV essays that drew conclusions. Your view of this matter is decidedly at odds with that of most other people who have looked at the articles. Moreover, your view of Noleander's actions contradicts his own stated intent. You're entitled to that view, but I can't see why anyone else would take it at all seriously. Jayjg 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm in the minority opinion, and fully accept that. Equazcion (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked through all of Noleander's edits, but the extent I did look through does not suggest a focus on anti-Jewish editing; if anything it suggests to me a focus on criticism of "organized religion" in general. That's a topic I'm familiar with, and what I see in his edits suggests a fairly broad-based approach. I regret saying this, because I don't feel that I'm in a position to judge Noleander's interests, and I doubt that this is the most productive way to evaluate editing. Mackan79 (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He has two main foci; his primary one is adding critical material about the Mormon church, and his secondary one is adding critical material about Jews. That is trivially obvious when one looks at his contributions. Jayjg 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I see his fourth most edited article is Criticism of Religion. Here is a section on the talk page of Religion I just skimmed through. I would say this supports my assessment. Mackan79 (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's his fourth most edited article. His first, second, fifth, sixth, ninth, twelfth, thirteenth and fifteenth most edited articles are criticisms of Mormons. In fact, his top two articles (criticizing Mormonism) comprise over 40% of his mainspace edits. In addition, his eight, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth most edited articles are about Jews. As for his fourth most edited article, Criticism of Religion, the criticisms are sometimes quite specific. I would say, and rather more convincingly, that this supports my assessment. Jayjg 04:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mackan seems to be attempting to dismiss Noleander's actions as representing an anti-religious bias rather than any anti-Jewish bias. As an atheist I would not care in the least if that were the case. However the facts do not support this view. If anything his actions have more in common with the attacks on secular Jews by William A. Donohue than anything anyone has written about the religious aspect of Judaism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been enjoying this debate, but in a practical sense, analyzing Noleander's past edits in an attempt to judge his character or future actions seems to cross the line into completely pointless. Is there an accusation of policy violation somewhere in this? Is there any reason not to let this go, and see what Noleander actually does in the future? Equazcion (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For some slightly ORish thoughts here, I consider this to be pretty difficult ground for the modern religious critic, as distinguished from so many here who are steeped in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I can cite someone like Richard Dawkins, probably the most prominent critic of this type, who is discussed in Misplaced Pages's article, Jewish lobby, for being accused of spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories in saying that atheists try to create such a lobby of their own. I would guess I am not alone in thinking, Dawkins, stick to what you know! I doubt many people really think he's antisemitic. But there are many like him, who share his familiarities and lack of familiarities. On Misplaced Pages, while I certainly appreciate an editor like Slrubenstein editing only in the areas of his expertise, the fact is that others of us edit to push the bounds of our knowledge, and sometimes avoid editing in areas of professional involvement. I should say that I certainly do not mean to defend the copying of something from a clearly antisemitic website; if a professional writer did this, it would be a problem. I am saying that if a college student does this it is something different. We let college students edit here, people who didn't go to college, I think we have administrators who are something like 12 years old. It doesn't mean we should lower standards, least of all regarding the creation of bigoted content, but we should recognize that the content is usually the standard, except where statements of a discriminatory agenda are quite clear. Sharply negative speculation about individual editors, even where there's thought to be some reason for it, is problematic. I do also agree with Equazcion's comment just above. Mackan79 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to make an important and i think relevant qualification. While I seldom stray from my areas of expertise, I will for the same reason many and I think Mackan does: in the process i learn more. But this only works when I work on new articles after having done serious research - to work on the Jesus article I read four books used in college courses. If we are to be as good an encyclopedia as we wish, we should expect the same from other editors. I'd say this is especially the case with controversial situations like anti-Semitism. Be that as it may, Noleander is clearly soapboxing, he has said he thinks that articles criticle of Jews get surpressed at Misplaced Pages, so he wants to wrkte articles criticle of Jews to challenge such supression. This is just a terrible thing to do and I find Equazcion's doffed support of Noleander - she has supported Noleander in every way, never questioning anything - mind-boggling. If I have misunderstood Noleander i apologize but i have requested clartification many times and have not been given it. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's terrible to want to counter a perceived suppression of information on Misplaced Pages? I find that mind-boggling. Again your claim that he's "clearly soapboxing" can be countered by my equally-useless claim that "he's clearly not soapboxing" -- unless you can provide proofs using diffs or quotes, which have thus far not been forthcoming. Equazcion (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

noleander break 3

Let me submit that there is a series of appropriate questions. The first question is whether an editor is adhering to policy. The second question, if not, is whether the behavior is correctable. The third question is what should be done. Here, it is fairly clear that there are policy violations regardless of where the material was taken, in that overly large sections were copied from unreliable sources without appropriate attribution. The major question seems to be the second: do the editor's actions show that they are correctable? My view is that this is the question to be resolved, and that currently it can't be resolved, primarily because this appears to be the first time these issues have been raised with this editor.

I might add that I wish this could all be resolved by interviewing the editor, yet I question whether intense group scrutiny is likely to achieve the desired result. One thing to keep in mind is that a Misplaced Pages editor is not necessarily a public figure, we don't ask to know who they are, and accordingly while we take the encyclopedia seriously we recognize (largely with WP:AGF) that editors may be of any age, background, level of education, expertise, or so on. It seems to me that this is an easily forgotten but significant point. Mackan79 (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're saying we should wait and see how this editor acts in the future, and I think that's the appropriate course of action. However, the editor has already stated a certain intent, and we may be able to assume he follows it. If some people here seem to think that intent would itself be a policy violation, what do we do then? Equazcion (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Intent is not a violation; action is. However, it is reasonable to allow stated intent to explain actions. At this point, if Noleander adheres to wiki policy and guideline in the future, it matters not if s/he is a Judeophile or Antisemite. However, if Noleander's future actions indicate a continued reliance on inappropriate sources and article creations, the stated intent would take on a greater role in the understanding of his or her actions, at least in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement, then, at least on where to go from here. I believe this incident has been resolved. Equazcion (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not in agreement, and I don't believe it's resolved. Please don't close discussions in which you're involved again. Jayjg 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Big, huge oops on my part. I mistook Avi's comment for one by you, Jayjg, and therefore thought the closing would be uncontroversial. I sincerely apologize. Equazcion (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said on my Talk: page, please keep in mind that there were many others who raised concerns regarding Noleander, and they all need more than an hour to evaluate and respond as well. Many of them will be off-Misplaced Pages right now, for various reasons. Indeed, Noelander himself has not had a chance to reply. In light of the various claims of "censorship" flying, including in the very articles that Noleander created, hasty closing of this discussion would seem, at best, ironic. Jayjg 03:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't have been so quick to close just because I thought you and I were in agreement. However, on that point, regarding where to go from here, are we in agreement? I promise I won't close the thread again if you say yes :) Equazcion (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

noleander break 4

This feels like the spanish inquistion :-) Seriously, I'll repeat what I've already said several times: I feel that WP is too "politically correct" in some areas. For some odd reason, I feel like I can help improve the encyclopedia in those areas. If you look at my edit history, you'll see that most (80%?) of my edits are adding/tweaking text that is critical of formal religions (Mormonism, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Scientology). I'm an equal opportunity skeptic :-) When I started working on Mormonism articles, there was some tension, but as the months went by, I began to respect the apologetic editors ("apologetic" meaning "defender of religion") and - I hope - they somewhat respected me. After a year or so, I was actually adding in lots of positive info about Mormonism, and improving the formatting of the articles.

Regarding this ANI: I have no particular axe to grind: just trying to fill in some perceived voids. I'm the first to admit I am a lousy writer, and am very ignorant of many WP policies (including how to properly cite sources). On the other hand, I am also the editor that added the following topics into articles An Empire Of Their Own:

• Jewish actors were forced to change their names
• Jewish producers, far from putting out J. propaganda, actually refrained from depicting J. themes in movies
• Jewish Hollywood figures were unfairly targetted by McCarthyism.

Some of the above has since been removed by other editors, but I was - to my knowledge - the first to add this material into WP.

And lets not forget my favorite story in WP:

In this chapter, Gabler also gives examples of anti-Semitism endured by the Hollywood Jews. Gaber quotes Milton Sperling telling a story about Joseph Schenck: "Schenck walked into a bank .. and the banker said to 'What are you doing with a kike?'. Years later, Schenk went back to this banker and said 'This kike wants to borrow $100 milllion'... The banker said 'I'll be very happy to do business with you' and said 'Fuck you'." -ref - Quoted in Gabler, p. 132

Do you know who added that? I did. (It has since been removed by another editor).

So, sure 80% of my edits focus on negative aspects of religion. You know what? My two favorite books are God is not great and The God Delusion. Heck, I was the editor that added the horrible crime by Islam when it destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan into the article Criticism of Religion (and no Islamic-apologetic editors threw an ANI fit about that). Is there some rule that contributions by a given editor must be 50% positive and 50% negative? I repeat, these ANIs are very obvious attempts to intimidate editors that would add (valid, notable) negative material about religions. --Noleander (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am appalled and astonished by the above. Admissions of being a lousy writer, a lousy editor, condescending comments about Mormanism, Judaism and other peoples religious beliefs and a smug assurance that your views matter? Are you kidding? What an incredible, incredible egotistic waste of time, - you think Misplaced Pages is too politically correct - so you figure a few Anti-Semitic articles will help things out, I thought I've seen everything, till now...Modernist (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Equal opportunity, huh? How about evangelical Christian? There are many of those who are anti-Jew/Mormon/Catholic/Scientologist/whathaveyou. You need to answer the question above by Jayjg about your sourcing at subsection Noleander break one, and why you think that Stormfront and RadioIslam are reliable sources for content. That would shed a lot of light on your conduct here. That being said, I agree with the opinions of editors above who think the article in question is an unacceptable coatrack. Auntie E. 17:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to rip my hair out after reading that, but to put it more delicately, I'd echo most of what Modernist said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

noleander break 5

(outdent) I am not one to encourage or particularly tolerate antisemitic activity on Misplaced Pages - but the point that overvigilant antisemitism can interfere with reasonable scholarly discussions and documentation of antisemitism is a valid one. Antisemitism is an important topic to bring out into the light and have encyclopedia articles on, because it's a fairly significant societal phenomenon, no matter how offensive or wrong we may feel it is.

I don't on quick review see clear evidence in Noleander's conduct that he's problematically antisemitic or editing grossly inappropriately, or trying to promote antisemitism as opposed to document it. There has been much sound and fury above about apparent or alleged bias with few diffs.

I think that it would be entirely appropriate to ask that those who believe there's a problem provide us with some specific diffs to show either point incidents or a wider pattern, and lacking those to close it with a "Just so we're all clear, there's going to be heightened scrutiny going forwards, but no action taken at this time" closing message.

I'll leave it open for now to offer the opportunity for someone(s) to offer diffs if they have them, but I would close (and recommend others to) if in a few hours diffs aren't forthcoming. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, stuff imported from Stormfront, POVish articles about Jews all covered up with the canard of "WP is too politically correct". You're (Noleander) an anti-semitic POV pusher. A clever one, to be sure, but a POV pusher all the same. Crafty (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When I am researching appropriate topics, I find that Stormfront, Covert Action Quarterly, Soldier of Fortune, the Chinese Communist Party, and Internet Trolls are all reliable sources. Usually on their own statements and positions; often on related topics.

That I grossly disagree with nearly all of what nearly all of those groups believe in doesn't mean that they are uniformly useless information sources.

Again - I am not ruling out someone finding diffs which are more specific. But I went and looked, and I didn't see any fire under the smoke here. I am perfectly happy to wield the banhammer on deserving antisemitic types who try and advocate on Misplaced Pages and push POV - I have a number of times before and undoubtedly will again. But I don't see that here.

I know plenty of educated intellectuals who study controversial topics who get caught up in backlashes. So the basic issue is familiar to me.

If I am misreading it - if there's actual evidence he's a problem - someone can surface some diffs and convince me. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But absence of evidence is reason to not overreact or react prematurely. If you really think he's a problem - do your homework and find some diffs. If you or anyone does so and my initial assessment turns out to be wrong then I'll not object to admin enforcement action, and I'll take it myself if it seems appropriate. But I'm not convinced yet, and the way to convince me is diffs, not rhetoric.

SO - again - diffs, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• A few thoughts and ideas:
  • Let's stop making ad hominem attacks on Noleander based on a mostly responsible overall record (see Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, Misplaced Pages:Etiquette ("forgive and forget") etc.) Some of the most valuable edits are made when people have a vested interest in improving the information about a particular subject, often with a particular viewpoint in mind. Regardless of Noleander's stated or unstated intent, most of Noleander's contributions which were critical of Judaism and other religions seem to have remained within the scope of reasonable editing. The edits cited by Slrubenstein as evidence of Noleander's previous record of anti-Jewish editing, for example, were valuable and creative contributions to articles. The article Jews and Hollywood, in my opinion, was a conspicuous exception. Here, I think the inclusion of quotes from antisemitic sources led to lines being crossed in core areas such as Misplaced Pages:Verifiability (since the sources were not reputable), Misplaced Pages:Coatrack (since the core information should have been the individual people and their contributions, not the antisemitic accusations), and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view ("Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"). IMO it should have been clearer to Noleander, at an earlier stage, which lines he crossed and when, and so I am offering some suggestions.
  • For a course of action, one possibility is to give Noleander a Level 2 warning on his Talk page for some of these violations (a Level 2 warning does not include threats or assumptions of bad faith, and also does not include a welcome since Noleander is not a new user). This type of warning is found in Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace. As I said, we should also try and make sure we and Noleander understand exactly where he crossed the line so he can think about how to prevent it from happening again.
  • I also feel that possible antisemitism is particularly troublesome even by the standards of bigotry, since the Holocaust occurred less than 70 years ago and antisemitism is still widespread. Antisemitism is a special (I am not saying unique) case because of its potential to lead to violence. --AFriedman (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Was with you up until the end; I don't think antisemetism is particularly troublesome, any more than any other possible bias. Objectivity is paramount over any sort of activism, at least when running an encyclopedia. Could you provide something specific, like a diff or quote from the article history, in which Noleander violated your NPOV snippet of "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"? Equazcion (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Equazcion, I think we agree on the big picture, i.e. the first 2 paragraphs that suggest some violations and propose a course of action. Do others agree that Noleander violated NPOV, Coatrack and Verifiability and warrants a Level 2 warning, as well as a note or suggestion that he avoid violating these policies in the future? Regarding the NPOV concerns, I was rethinking that a bit and let me explain: the article originally focused overwhelmingly on accusations of disproportionate Jewish influence, much of which came from fringe and unreliable sources. Viewpoints that were sympathetic to Jews, such as the ADL, were mentioned more briefly and were less thoroughly explained. To me, this seems to violate NPOV. As for antisemitism being particularly troublesome, I am not saying it belongs in a special category relative to anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-Armenian or anti-African bigotry, for example. All these have the potential to cause actual harm to people. However, we probably don't need to be as careful about other types of bias. An outright attack on another group, such as students of Cornell University, may equally violate Misplaced Pages policy. However, it is less likely to incite people to hatred and therefore less concerning. Offline, it is acceptable to sing anti-Cornell songs at football games that one could never sing about Jews or Muslims :) --AFriedman (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I disagree. It's not our job to run the encyclopedia in such a way as to prevent violence. If it were, there are many articles I can think of that wouldn't exist on Misplaced Pages. The antisemitism issue we're dealing with in this incident is an emotional one. Let's not kid ourselves with righteousness. As far as NPOV, I didn't see there being enough material from the ADL to balance the volume of content needed to describe the antisemitic incidents, and adding more would've seemed forced. That kind of balance isn't what NPOV is about anyway. NPOV refers to a reporting style and language, not balancing content volume on two sides of an issue. If you had a diff regarding "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves", that would've been something, as it seems central to many of the arguments presented against Noleander: People are saying he asserted the opinions themselves, or "promoted" them (essentially the same thing), rather than merely stating facts about opinions. If there's actual evidence of that, I'm willing to re-examine my position. So far, no one's presented anything, and until that happens, I don't see any need to discuss any course of action other than accepting Noleander's apology and seeing what he does in the future. Equazcion (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
          • For those who want to discuss what our role is on Misplaced Pages, above and beyond the question of Noleander--I still disagree with Equazcion's assessment of how severely we should sanction antisemitism and racism relative to other types of bias, and why--I've responded to the more general issue on Equazcion's talk page. Good night. --AFriedman (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Eh, I don't think the two assessments are so far apart. The articles had serious problems, starting with the titles; without repeated instances following feedback that isn't something we generally punish people for, but I think it can be recognized. For one thing, to start an article on controversies with Jews and Hollywood with the allegations about the film industry's negative portrayals of African Americans, and then suggesting that otherwise this history isn't covered on Misplaced Pages... well, I think a mainstream way to deal with that issue would not be to cover it as a controversy of Jews and Hollywood. My personal suggestion to Noleander would also be, really, please stop saying that people are complaining out of ulterior motives; this is speculative, it's an assumption of bad faith, and it does no good at all. Similarly (and because I assume it is done for the same reason) I think it's bad form to delete people's talk page messages without comment. On the other hand, I think Afriedman is clearly right that the personal attacks here have gone much too far all around. I can't support an additional formal warning without assuming bad faith (which I don't), but otherwise I think AFriedman's comments are well made. Mackan79 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• I support the view of AFriedman. Noleander is hereby warned about plagiarism, and copyvio (See top of this thread), and directed to be much more careful about neutral point of view, not writing coatrack type articles, and verifiability. I'm still willing to assume good faith. However, if there is any more copying of Stormfront content into Misplaced Pages, I'll be quick to change my mind and reach for the block button. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and that's policy. Jehochman 09:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Noleander break 6

Mackan and others here are trying to focus on behavior rather than intent. I agree this is a constructive approach, and refreshing - I acknowledge the limits of my original approach which was to raise questions about intent. But this is a problem with collective attacks (like homophobia, racism, sexism etc) - one can always say one was being ironic or providing an example and not intending to do harm. This is especially an issue here where at least one of the articles in question has been revised during the AfD procedure (not in and of itself a bad thing, but it makes it hard to kep a consistent AfD discussion going). I know some editors did not like the way I originally forwarded the problem, and I will confess now to one big doubt I have: I am concerned i may be misunderstanding Noleander. That is why I raised a few questions of my own the other day ... but they were not answered.

I would still appreciate it if Noleander would answer these questions: Do you think that every AfD is an attempt to censor? Do you think Misplaced Pages should allow anti-Semitic articles? I am sure you have a lot more to say in response but I'd appreciate yes/no answers to at least these two questions,at least as a start. Then I would really like you to address two points: (1) concrete examples to illustrate this: "My perception is that Misplaced Pages is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship" - perhaps this can be interprested different ways so I would like no room for misunderstanding - and (2) how, precisely, do these two articles you started reverse (as you claimed they would) that censorship? Again, as concrete and specific as posible to leave no rrom for misundanding. I am acknowledging I may have misunderstood you in the past. I ask these questions in good faith to clear up misunderstandings. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Is User:Georgewilliamherbert seriously implying that articles on Stormfront (website) satisfy WP:V and WP:RS? That is how I read his remarks, in view of the copy-pasting by Noleander under discussion.Even the wikipedia article describes it as a hate site. Perhaps, instead of describing his private life and contacts with "educated people", Georgewilliamherbert should clarify this matter a little more carefully than he has done so far, particularly since nobody expects this kind of misleading comment and soapboxing to come from an administrator. Mathsci (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. George's claim sounds bizaare. There seems no reasonable way under any reading of WP:RS that they would be a reliable source for anything. Heck even if Stormfront makes claims about itself I doubt I'd consider it a reliable source for that. I'm deeply concerned here. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

GWH's statement about Stormfront, etc., concern a important point about when obviously unreliable sources can be treated as reliable sources. This may sound like a contradiction, but it is actually a subtle point which many people get wrong: such sites are reliable only about what they say. One example would be the canard about President Obama being a Muslim: if Stormfront states that he is a Muslim, this is a reliable source for saying "Stormfront stated that they believed President Obama was a Muslim" -- & nothing more. These sites can also be cited in some cases where their statement is at odds with verifiable truth. For example, if Stormfront stated that at their annual picnic they claimed it was attended by 10,000 people, I have no problem quoting them on this -- as long as you include the material from a reliable source (like a local newspaper) which reports only 50 people attended their annual picnic, which consisted of 10 Stormfront supporters & 40 anti-Nazi protesters.

I believe this was the point GeorgeWilliamHerbert was trying to make. (And sorry for the leftistliberal use of italics.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at. They are a reliable source for their own claims - we do not need a secondary source to say "Stormfront said this", we can cite Stormfront as having said something directly if they did. That is not implying that anything they say is accurate or reasonable in any way. But if they say it, they said it, we can note that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(To George) But they are not what Misplaced Pages calls reliable sources. They are allowed to be used as sources about themselves in articles about themselves, or in sections of articles about issues they're directly involved in, but that doesn't mean we call them reliable sources (even for information about themselves)—otherwise we'd find them used in all kinds of articles: Stormfront says this, Stormfront says that, about its own views, where we don't care what they think. They are self-published, questionable sources whose use is limited largely to their own article. SlimVirgin 03:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

To quote myself from what started this: "When I am researching appropriate topics, I find that Stormfront, Covert Action Quarterly, Soldier of Fortune, the Chinese Communist Party, and Internet Trolls are all reliable sources. Usually on their own statements and positions; often on related topics."

I did not say, do not believe, and did not imply anything along the lines of "Stormfront is a Misplaced Pages 'Reliable Source' on other topics". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. Profoundly unreliable sources are not useful as sources. We don't quote what Stormfront has to say, we quote what reliable sources say about Stormfront. Jayjg 21:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

RSs writing about Stormfront are not as reliable for what they said in their own publications, as their publications are. Outside sources are of course more reliable as to the true nature of their intents and methods. Any source is usable is used appropriately. It would of course have saved a good deal of trouble if this article has not used material from them--it could have been written nevertheless. There is unfortunately a practical danger in even examining evil-other people will rightly or wrongly think you are doing so out of sympathy. Nonetheless responsible journalists, academics, and writers of secondary & tertiary sources need to do so. Experience shows that even if they do it very carefully, they will be attacked by the bigoted. Yet to avoid doing so is to succumb to this well-intentioned bigotry. That's the problem with bigots: even when they are well-intentioned, they destroy liberty . The encyclopedia is built on the basic assumption that people do not need to be protected from ideas--any ideas, no matter how unpleasant. we need to have the courage and integrity to do so, or we will become a mirror image of Conservapedia. "This message has led to great harm to millions--please don't repeat it" is not an acceptable concept; it is less likely to lead to harm in the future if it is discussed openly--that's part of the reason for freedom of speech. That, and sure knowledge that every time there has been well-intentioned censorship, it has proven to extend itself--this is one of the valid uses of the slippery slope argument. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not about "protecting" people from information (NOTHING we at Misplaced Pages can do will protect people from any other information freely available on the web, to arrogate for ourselves that role is hubris.) The issue is this: part of prepresenting information accurately is to provide information about its context; in this case, being up-front that this information comes from Stormfront and as cuh reveals something about Stormfront's views with more information about Stormfront as necessary. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been away from Misplaced Pages for a couple of days, and found this thread as an indirect result of the fact that I closely watch Criticism of religion. I am troubled by the extent to which much of the talk here seems to be taking the form of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith against Noleander. I have not followed the pages this thread discusses, but I've carefully read all of this talk and looked at the pages that are under AfD. It seems to me that copying wholesale from hate sites is a pretty abysmal idea, but it also appears that Noleander has apologized for that, and that the problems with page content are in the process of being addressed without the need for administrative intervention. From what I've seen at Criticism of religion, Noleander is a thoughtful editor who has done a lot to improve the page, albeit with a slightly heavy hand as a harsh critic of all religions. I consider myself to have a very sensitive radar for antisemitism, and what I've seen in the edits I've watched is consistent with someone who likes Hitchens and Dawkins, as Noleander has said above, and not consistent with someone who is using Misplaced Pages to push hate speech. I hope that the outcome of this ANI will be for Noleander to have a better sensitivity to what concerns some editors, and particularly to become more careful with sourcing material that can be expected to provoke sensitivity, but I also sympathize strongly with Noleander's comparison of this talk with the Inquisition. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish, in the articles in question, no one has accused/criticized Noleander of/for challenging Jewish belief in God, or Jewish theological claims, or actions that Jesws justify with reference to God, the Bible, or religion. The issue here is his having taken, for one article, anti-Semitic (i.e. racist, not anti-religion) quotes from notorious anti-Semitic outlets (Stormfront and a radio station) - and in the process, incedentaly, probably violating copyright and RS. His critics accuse him of presenting this information in such a way as to minimize any kind of encyclopedic value (e.g. by looking at reliable sources for historical or sociological analysis of such racist discourse) and in effect to appropriate Misplaced Pages space to propogate anti-Semitic canards, without providing readers with any kind of context. The other article is really a personal essay on how Jews accuse people of anti-Semitism in order to censor them. Aside from many obvious problems (Jews do not control the state and cannot censor anyone; if someone is falsely accused of anti-Semitism they can easily say so; if someone really did make an anti-Semetic remark, and regrets it - like when Rev. Jesse Jackson called NYC "Hymietown" - they can meet with Jewish leaders, apologize, and move forward; and real anti-Semites who have no interest in dialogue with Jews or making apologis maybe ought to shut up rather than continue spewing hatred), this really was a personal essay presented as an article and should have been kept an essay. I know for a fact Noleander had made good edits in the past. But here somehow he has gone of track, wildly off track. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, WOW, I've been gone from here for just a little while and I didnt expect to have to read a book (or two) just to catch up, I didnt imagine this discussion would still be going on, let alone have gone through multiple breaks (5? really?). I must admit, I skimmed, didnt read everyone fully, if I missed a particular point or am repeating one made multiple times I apologize, but here is my opinion (as an editor) and yes it will be lengthy no need to point it out to me later, bear with me, I have good points to make- The two Jewish related articles I have seen Noleander create/contribute almost exclusively to where POV forks that by design could only be written in a POV anti-semitic manner. I am equally surprised the AfD's have not been closed out in favor of delete already and I am inclined to think that the discussion here, by still going on, is influencing the decision not to close those two out. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and we dont go by votes, but in my opinion the overwhelming majority is in favor of delete and yes that should be one of many considerations for an admin. The facts are still that it is a POV fork and that fact alone is one to have an admin close it immediately in favor of delete, and I humbly ask that an admin be bold and do so as quickly as possible. Many of you know me as being emotional and sometimes over-the-top and agressive in getting my point across, but I hope you also know me as being fair and always fighting the good fight in favor of what makes Misplaced Pages stronger and to protect the weaker of our members, and that I wouldnt stick myself in this fight if I didnt have a strong belief it was on the right-side of our policies and guidelines. I hope you take that in consideration and see that it is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages to close out as delete on both AfD's; as for Noleander's fate I am not qualified as an editor to give an opinion, though I sympathize with those that want a topic ban keeping him from Jewish-related articles.

• That was my comment as an editor, now is my comment as a Jew- the two articles are a disgrace and an insult to me personally and to my race. They are libelous, you can throw citations on libel and it still is legally libel (dont accuse me of making legal threats, you know what I meant by saying that). Such articles are terrible and inexcusable. To allow such articles on Misplaced Pages is a slap in the face of every editor of minority background on Misplaced Pages. Because Jews are so such a small minority in the US and other English speaking countries (this being English Misplaced Pages after all) it is easy for gentiles to sweep racism directed towards us as "not particularly dangerous". As I pointed out before, this is how organizations such as KKK and the NAZI's operate. Ban, burn, destroy books and other information regarding our (Jewish) contributions to society, slur us in reliable publications slyly (the name and topic of Noleander's articles I am 90% sure were actually used in those publications by the KKK and by skinheads, and no they arent allowed as RS or for use establishing notability), slur us openly, and then we know where they go to after their propoganda has caught a sizable toehold. I draw the line here and now, this is one reliable publication where they will not slur and we will not allow their hatred to be published in order to diseminate their hatred and beliefs. To claim you are putting forth a bigoted view in order to make an article "neutral" and present "the otherside" is EXACTLY what the NAZI's and KKK have done in the past (and neo-NAZI's and the current Klan continue to do). I do not understand why if one's only edits to Jewish-related articles are always negative how that can be considered being a neutral constructive editor; he is a clear POV pusher. If you study the history of anti-semitic organizations you will see the parallels to what Noleander is doing and why Jews (and other minorities as well) understand that the line must be drawn quickly and forceably and early-on. As a Jew, and not as an editor, I strongly urge, beg, plead, pray, and even cry for justice and for the quick closing of the AfD's as "delete" and a topic ban be put on Noleander restricting him from editing Jewish-related articles.Camelbinky (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

my little essay

This has been a draft in my userspace for about a day now. Some individuals involved in the debate at my talk page have already seen it. I'm presenting it here for consideration, and feel free to comment.

I've been genuinely confused over the past few days as to why Noleander's articles were causing such flareups. Slrubenstein's rather lengthy and, pardon my honesty, visibly emotional comments were particularly vexing, especially as he seemed to back down completely when Noleander expressed agreement to contribute to existing articles instead. Why would the same content be that much more acceptable in an existing article?

I then read this comment by User:HereToHelp, at the AfD for Jews and Hollywood: "NPOV means tempering information about cranks with information from scholarly sources of all points of views. The censorship was of pro-Jewish views, and of satsistics, and of basically anyone who hadn't written an antisemitic text."

But, what if the article is about people who write anti-semitic texts? The "censorship" this user referred to struck me. He seemed to be saying that an article about perceived Jewish leadership in Hollywood could only ever contain reports of accusations and other negative statements, and therefore doesn't belong on the encyclopedia. Without being able to sustain positive comments and incidents as well the negative, the article should not be on Misplaced Pages, he seems to be saying.

This would explain why the content has been deemed so much more acceptable in existing articles, since the suggested articles contain the positive as well. As long as we see the good while we're looking at the bad, everything is fine; as is my understanding.

Isn't this overstating the need for balance? Must all articles counter-balance the negativity that occurs in the world with proportionately positive content? Can an article not simply be about a negative subject?

I wonder if articles depicting negativity alone, or rather, articles whose titles, by definition, confine their content to collections of negative incidents, are allowed on Misplaced Pages; and, does it work the same for positive incidents, too? Must both always be present to make an article? Why or why not?

PS. NPOV isn't the answer, as NPOV only states which sources and which language to use, not how much content must be placed on each side of an issue. Equazcion (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not correct that WP:NPOV only states which sources and language to use, not how much should be placed on each side of an issue. WP:UNDUE is part of that policy, and it specifically addresses what you're talking about. Articles who confine their content to collections of negative incidents are usually POV forks and are generally not allowed in Misplaced Pages. -- Atama頭 22:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Equavizcion reflects on my motives without sharing my response. No matter, I will share it with you myself: Racism is not a matter of negative versus positive views. My own opinion is that boasting about how great Jews are and what they have done for Hollywood is just as distasteful as the opposite. Racism is about reducing individuals to representatives of groups. This is what makes Farrakhan a racist. He is quite right that an array of people in the "entertainment industry" have produced racist and stereotypic images of blacks. He is racist himself when he blames "the Jews." Blame Al Jolson or Director X or screenwriter Y. Are they Jews? Then the burden is to demonstrate how this is relevant and not an accident. Even if it is relevant (i.e that something about Jewish identity, e.g. that Jews having to pass as whites led them to be fascinated with minstrelcy, in which they parodize their passing as blacks, an argument I think a professor at U. VA has made) this does not mean that "The Jews" are responsible for racist stereotypes. That itself is racist. But saying something like, "if it weren't for the Jews we wouln't have such great movies as Bridge on the River Kwai" is at best silly. It is not a matter of "positive" or "negative." This leads to a simplistic notion of balance that leads people like Equavizcion to chase her tail, and to keep losing focus when reading comments by me and others (I think AuntieE is making a similar point above - and I note that as often happens neither Noleander nor Equavizcion responded to her comment) . For most of us who would edit an encyclopedia, what makes an article good is never that it says some good things and some bad things, that is just silly. That may be what is expected in a Jr. high school research paper but by the time you get to high school, or at least college, you are suposed to learn what really is required for competent research presentations. Now, as to why would I prefer a discussion of Jews in Hollywood in other articles? I explained my reasoning quite plainly on the AfD pages, and see no need to repeat myself.Slrubenstein | Talk 23:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Atama. That's the first policy-based argument that might actually fit. Slrubenstien, you're making the same accusations of racism again; these again are reports of opinions, not assertions of opinions. You've yet to provide any examples that show assertion (not unlike most other people making such claims here). Thank you Atama, I'm going to have to mull that over. Equazcion (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, stop misrepresenting me. I am not making any accusations, at all. I am responding to an essay you wrote (hint: the name of this section is "My little essay") in which you make insinuations about what I believe. You do not know what I believe, so your insinuations are mistaken. I think I have a right to set the record straight and explain what I do believe, if you are going to make false claims about what I believe. You imply that I believe that racism is saying bad things about Jews, and neutrality, or whatever we call an acceptable state at Misplaced Pages, is accomplished by adding good things about Jews. You are implying that I believe this, and you are wrong. On your talk page you invited me to respond to your essay, but i guess you were being disingenuous there. I thought that when you invited me to respond to your little essay, you meant that I could confirm your interpretation of my beliefs, or provide an laternative. Since you are wrong, I am providing the alternative.

You cannot have it both ways. you cannot accuse me of making acusations and then fault me for not providing examples. Guess what, Einstein: I did not provide examples because i am not making accusations. I am simply providing my definition of racism, since you claimed to know my definition and got it so terribly wrong. Maybe it was your little essay that was meant to be an "accusation?" Slrubenstein | Talk 11:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not about you and I, and I meant no 'insinuation'. I used your comments in conjunction with others' to describe the situation as I saw it, and made every attempt to clearly spell out any inferences I made. I was trying to figure out what the problems with the articles actually were, as this was a major point of confusion for me. This was not something sinister. This was an attempt at gaining clarification. You made it personal, and continue to. Perhaps specifically naming you encouraged that, but I didn't know how else to make my point. Nevertheless I apologize. As for accusations, well, call them what you want, but you've said the article is racist and antisemitic, and those claims are what I'd rather have proof of (diffs/quotes that violate NPOV) than take at your word. Equazcion (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology, but i am confused. You wrote that I was making the same accusations of racism again, which I was not doing. I said that I am not doing this and you apologize ... and then you say that I am continuing to make the same accusations of racism. it is hard for me to follow your reasoning.

My reasoning is very easy to follow. In your little essay you write, "Slrubenstein's ... comments were particularly vexing" and you wonder why, and then as an answer you wrote, "content has been deemed so much more acceptable in existing articles, since the suggested articles contain the positive as well. As long as we see the good while we're looking at the bad, everything is fine; as is my understanding." All I said in response was that your conclusion is wrong, and that my problem was not the absense of "positive" content. I wrote that I considered certain lkinds of positive views to be just as racist as negative ones - I was only trying to explain why you are wrong to say that I reacted as I did because of a lack of positive comments. That is all I was doing. I was not singling out any Wikipedian as a racist, I was not naming anyone as a racist, I was not accusing anyone of racism, I was just explaining why you are wrong to think my view of racism is that it only takes the form of ngaitve comments, and should be remedied by positive comments. That is it, that was my point. And your response was: "Slrubenstien, you're making the same accusations of racism again." So while I am glad you are apologizing, I am not sure what you are apologizing for. For claiming i was accusing people of racism when I am not? Frankly, it seems like all you want to do is attack me and it really doesn't matter what I say. Is it that hard for you to say "Oh, I misunderstood why you favor existing articles over the ones currently at AfD?" I mean, that is the topic of your essay right, why some people (me being one among others) have no problem with some existing articles, but do have a problem with the ones currently at AfD? Isn't your claim that we accept negative comments only when balanced by positive comments? Di I misinterpret that? So why is my correction "No, I am not asking that positive comments be added and the reason I prefer other articles is not because they have positive comments" interpreted by you as my accusing someone of racism? Tell me whom, in my comment on your essay, I am accusing of racism (aside from Al Jolsen)? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm apologizing for naming you specifically in my essay. I felt my point was served better by pointing out certain comments, but I understand if that made my essay seem like a personal attack on you, and so I apologize. I've since taken back the word "accusation" in favor of "claim", the claim that Noleander's articles were either racist or antisemitic, one merely being a subcategory of the other.

"Isn't your claim that we accept negative comments only when balanced by positive comments?" -- Yes, and the other way around; and that prohibition does actually seem to be in policy, as Atama pointed out.

"Racism is about reducing individuals to representatives of groups." -- This was in your original response to my essay, and I took it to mean that you were saying the articles had done this -- reduced individuals to representative of a group. I'm not sure why else you would have said that, but I could be mistaken. Equazcion (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There are really two articles combined into one. Both are acceptable but should be separate. The first is about Jewish persons' contributions to Hollywood, which would require sources and explain why Jewish people came to Hollywood. The second is about a conspiracy theory. That also must be reliably sourced but instead the article relies on primary sources of people commenting on perceived Jewish control. These comments are then balanced with statements defending Jewish influence in Hollywood. It violates WP:OR. Articles about historical subjects should not mention conspiracy and fringe theories. On the other hand, articles about conspiracy and fringe theories should not present them as mainstream views. The fact that this article began as an attempt to promote a conspiracy theory means that it cannot be salvaged and it is offensive to try to do so. After all, readers can always go back and find the original title and draft of the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think past revisions are a concern. When content has been fixed, the article is generally considered fixed. There's no problem with past revisions unless personal contact info has been posted, or something of that nature. Equazcion (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces, I think that is the reason I can't get too concerned about this article whether it is kept or deleted: in the versions I have read, it is a confused mess which lacks a point. And I expect that if either -- or both -- of these articles were written instead of what we have now, there'd be a lot less outrage over this matter. Some subjects require a lot more care to write about than others. -- llywrch (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Chuthya and the David Shankbone article

Continuing on the earlier thread regarding User:67.160.100.233, it appears as though the widespread predictions at the deletion discussion that the article for David Shankbone would become a harassment coatrack were prescient. User:Chuthya has taken up the ball now, adding a (since removed, and it must be said: non-notable) photograph of a goat urinating to the article. He has stated his intention to attempt to add non-notable male anatomy photographs to the article, as well. Other of his edits pick up a common harassment tactic used against User:David Shankbone, while yet another appears to be highly questionable. I've attempted to explain to him why several of his recent edits are problematic, and not all of his edits have been prima facie harassment (but still appear to fail wp:rs and wp:blp, and apparently open the door to his other goals). However subtle, these edits and his apparent motive appear highly problematic, especially for a wp:blp. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Chuthya of this discussion. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page, all of my contributions to that article involve inclusion of CC licensed images that were contributed by the subject. These images were voluntarily uploaded to Commons by the subject. If the subject feels that these images are embarassing, he certainly has the right to request their deletion as their author. I hardly see how editing an article to include contributions by its subject could be construed as harassment. As I also stated, the subjects numerous contributions of free photographs of male anatomy could be included in the article, but undoubtably shouldn't without discussion first. Lastly, I initiated a discussion in talk regarding inclusion in the article the subject's contributions in the area of gay pornography. The article is arguably non-neutral with regard to coverage of the subject's intrests and contributions in this area. But rather than boldly including this in the article, I initiated discussion in talk. User:J's characterations of my edits, and presumption of what my "goals" are, are a woeful example of not assuming good faith. Chuthya (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned to you earlier, adding a non-notable photograph of a urinating goat to the biography of a living person regardless of your explanation, stretches any possible assumption of good faith past its breaking point. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you feel the image is notable, it is an example representative of his work and contributions to the project. It would be prefectly legitimate to include any of his contributions in the article, though arguably some would be more controversial than others. Images from Commons don't need sourcing because they're automatically sourced on the description page. That's the purpose of Commons. If you question the attributability of Commons, then you question the project's ability to comply with GFDL and Creative Commons licenses. Chuthya (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between attribution and actual reliable sourcing. Given the variety and significant quantity of his work, decisions made by you or me to include certains pieces of his work give rise to the potential for a sort of editorial original research potentially lacking in neutrality, as was the case with one of the images you intended to insert and the other images you indicated you would like to insert. This is highly problematic, especially for a wp:blp, and especially given the amplitude of not reliable contributions that could be pulled from here and Commons. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What dialect of bafflegab is that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a unique dialect utilized primarily when trying to craft a response to a wp:ididnthearthat question. It boils down to: Special:Contributions is not a reliable source. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I should have recognized bullshit when I heard it! So, if a normally reliable source, say Scientific American, uses one of David's images from the Commons and says "Photo of Colbert by David Shankbone via Wikimedia Commons", that means it magically becomes, to use your word, "reliable" even though they took that information from the Commons as supplied by David. Is that your argument? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The distinction being that Wikimedia Commons, which is to say you or me, are not a reliable source for editorial decisions, while Scientific American is by our standards. You can call it "bullshit," but it's the only way I see for keeping exactly what happened here today from continuing to occur. Selecting photographs for a biography of a living person that are anything other than a headshot can be a highly editorialized process, and as was displayed here, it can be an easy way for someone with a point to make to make that point much better than they could have with "a thousand words." I don't know of any other wp:blp with these sorts of issues, because I don't think any other notable living person has hundreds or thousands of images from which any given editor lacking in neutrality could pick from to make their point. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit it gets off the hook for choosing which of the many great images of David's to use, but it's not much better than choosing randomly or asking David for his favourites. You keep coming back to this very idiosyncratic idea that reliable sources are needed to prove that David took the image in question. If that were the case, shouldn't we be looking for images that have been written about rather than just re-used, sometimes without credit? Don't you think choosing appropriate images for any artist requires some level of discretion? I'm not suggesting that we insert the goat into David Shankbone, but can we try to treat this BLP like we treat other BLPs? There seems to be some ideas that this article is special, when we really ought to be going out of our way to show that it is not, and to see if there are shortcomings with how we handle BLPs. Please don't bother to reply. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's idiosyncratic. Again, I don't know of any other wp:blp where this particular issue has ever been an issue, so "treating it like other" biographies, for me, is falling back to relying on pictorial editorial decisions made by secondary, reliable sources, rather than by us. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I should know better than to wade into this, but your repeated use of the phrase "non-notable photograph" makes me wonder if you think it means something. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. If it were a notable photograph that he had taken, which had been printed in or covered by reliable sources, perhaps its inclusion would be reasonable. As a non-notable photograph, the only motivation for its editorial selection would be on the part of User:Chuthya... I'm sure there are a lot of reasons for why somebody would think a urinating goat would be appropriate to include in a biography of a living person. I just can't think of any. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

J, someone seems to have reformatted several comments here, so I'm not sure if you were replying to me, but you seem to be saying that only images printed in or covered by RS can be included in David Shankbone? Is that really what you are suggesting, or did I misunderstand? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Photographs of the subject are one thing. Photographs taken by the subject are another thing altogether, and, just to start with, there needs to be relevance to the subject greater than him simply having taken the photograph. I personally interpret wp:rs and wp:blp as being problematic in the instance of this biography: User:Chuthya wanted to discuss User:David Shankbone's Misplaced Pages contributions in the article. I think that's where secondary, reliable coverage becomes important... Along those lines, I'm not yet convinced using a different standard for photographs contributed to Wikimedia, as opposed to text contributed to Misplaced Pages, is going to work for this biography, given the actions undertaken by User:Chuthya and likely to be undertaken by others. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that David took the image of a goat or of Whoopie Goldberg(or any of the literally thousands of images he has contributed). I don't understand why you would think RS is relevant here. Is this something to do with the mysterious "non-notable photograph" you alluded to earlier? DO you think a third-party needs to affirm that David took the photograghs? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See my response to User:Achromatic below, which also covers the questions you raised. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(to Chuthya, to avoid confusion) Oh for christ's sake who do you think you're kidding? AGF is not a shield for the patently obvious tactic here of picking the most famously controversial/salacious images from his commons collection and jamming them into the article to make a point. This has nothing to do with sourcing or attribution, so drop that false argument, please. On another note, this is another reason why marginal BLPs shouldn't be created. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless the photos are relevant to the article content as sourced to reliable independent coverage, it's not clear why they would warrant inclusion. As far as examples of the subjects work, why not use ones that relevant to the content? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for WP:POINT and WP:BLP violations. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this block. Looking at the article I see there is an entire gallery section of "example" photographs. Who gets to decide which ones should be included? If the subject of that BLP has contributed photographs on a range of subjects, shouldn't that be reflected? Otherwise I would think the gallery is itself improper (as may be the case).

I think continued discussion would have been preferable to a block. As long as that editor was willing to work through dispute resolution and abide by consensus, blocking someone whose position is controversial seems problematic to me. It very well may be the case that they are trying to make a point, but we are expected to assume good faith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, I don't see how one can assume good faith when an editor is attempting to add a photograph of the rear end of a goat to the biography of a living person. Assuming good faith is one thing; ignoring the obvious point (at best) is another. That being said, I'm not convinced, as you highlight, that the gallery can survive wp:rs and therefore wp:blp, and this may be a heretofore undiscussed issue that needs to be addressed (as I mention above in reply to User:Delicious carbuncle). user:J aka justen (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - it seems to be your point that the WP page of an artist should only contain art/photography OF the artist, not BY the artist. One wonders why you are not at Rene Magritte, removing the imagery of "The Treachery Of Images" and "The Human Condition", after all, they apparently hold no relevance to the article. Or perhaps Andres Serrano, where no image of the artist appears, but only "Madonna and Child II", an image which shows these religious figures floating in human urine, after all, surely it is stretching past the boundary of good faith to assume that image is there for any purpose other than to discredit the artist. Or perhaps you'd care to explain to people why some artist's page should have their work exhibited, but that you are fighting tooth and nail for another artist's page NOT to have their work exhibited? Achromatic (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding my position: Andres Serrano has a vast body of work with individually notable pieces which have themselves received significant reliable secondary coverage. If I may, Urinating Goat is no Piss Christ, and the image could not have been selected because of its notability within the "portfolio" of David Shankbone. Rather, it appears to have been selected editorially to make a point, as User:Cirt and others have noted above. Likewise, his intention to include photographs of male anatomy appears geared to include otherwise tangential salacious content in a biography of a living person (as User:Tarc noted above), even though said photographs are representative of a very small portion of what User:David Shankbone has uploaded. All of this to say that I don't believe I've created a double standard: if any of User:David Shankbone's images, individually, receive reliable secondary coverage, they should be included in his article. If not, any given editor selecting which to include here can become a significant editorial neutrality issue, as was proven here, and I think that's why we should look closely to wp:rs and wp:blp to figure out how to deal with this sort of situation. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the subject of the BLP has added numerous photos related to gay and sexual subjects. If that part of their work is notable and has been covered in reliable independent media it should be represented (along with other subjects they have worked on). But again, I think the key is that a reasonable discussion based on policies and focused on article content would be the best way to proceed, rather than assuming the worst and blocking someone who includes content that is controversial. If the blocked editor had insisted on continuing to add that material without participating in discussion towards resolving the dispute, that would be a different issue. But I don't see a sign of that. Instead I see anyone who comments anonymously on the talk page regarding the photos that are and aren't being included bein attacked. It's not clear why a goat's ass is helpful to include, so maybe I'm being naive, but if isn't a significant photograph why is it on Misplaced Pages to begin with? I'm not an expert on David's career or his photographic work, or the media coverage of it, if there is any, so I'm open to discussion on how it should be represented. This Wikinews story notes that censorship and pornography issues have arisen in the past . Were they covered in reliable independent media? Right now the article is full of shots with celebrities and a bunch of shots he's taken of celebrities. That doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic or representative of his body of work. Does that mean it needs more genitalia? Maybe. Maybe not. Let's discuss what's appropriate. Blacketeers article was deleted as soon as there was a controversy about him. If we're going to have these articles on BLPs we need to be transparent, neutral and accurate. If not then just delete the thing and be done with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is controversial. If I thought someone was a goat's arse and put an image of a goat's arse on their article (even if they took the photo) I would fully expect to be blocked for it. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For whatever reason, User:David Shankbone is a very widely "followed" editor on here and in the peanut gallery, and has more than a few (unfavourable) "followers" who apparently would like to use his newly minted wp:blp as a new conduit to make what they believe to be unflattering points about him. As to why preventing this is controversial, I can't speculate. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Look guys, if Shankbone uploads a photo to Misplaced Pages or Commons with his name on it, and does not choose to "opt out" of his BLP, then any of his photos can be placed in the article as representative of his work. If he was willing to put his name on a photo of the rear end of a goat, then I don't see why he would object to it being placed in his article as representative of his work. It is not a BLP violation as long as it contains no infammatory or insulting verbiage in the image caption. Do not block people for linking to his images in his article. If Shankbone doesn't like it, he can ask for his bio to be deleted. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think wp:blp is clear that using images "out of context," such as was the case here, is unacceptable. Where did you come up with the interpretation that wp:blp only applies to image captions? user:J aka justen (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not out of context to display any of the images that this guy took. If he's willing to take such a picture and upload it to Commons with his name on it, then he is adding it to his collection of work for which he is known for. Who are we to judge which images (apart from featured images) have more value or are more representative than any other? History is history, art is art. We present the content, within our policies, and let the readers decide for themselves if it has merit or not. Again, if this guy doesn't want to be associated with those photos anymore within Misplaced Pages, then it behooves him to ask that his BLP be deleted. Otherwise, I guess he'll just have to accept the consequences for the decisions that he makes or has made. A good lesson for us all. Cla68 (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Who are we to judge which images (apart from featured images) have more value or are more representative than any other?" Precisely. Which is why we should only highlight images that reliable sources have printed, used, or otherwise commented on. "Otherwise, I guess he'll just have to accept the consequences for the decisions that he makes or has made." Seriously? Beyond that, I think your viewpoint is entirely out of touch with wp:blp. "Anything you contribute to this project can and will be used against you in your biography" is not in line with the spirit of Misplaced Pages or Wikimedia, and makes a laughingstock of our policy on the biographies of living people. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what the issue is. Here's a stab at it. It's one thing to decorate your user pages with any and all photos you can find in commons. Far as I know, that's totally acceptable. But when photos are used in an article, even when they're free, they need to be "notable" in some way. Presumably the subject is notable, so obviously photos of himself would therefore be notable. Maybe photos of himself with celebrities would be notable. But photos he's taken from behind the camera are presumably only notable to the article if someone else says they are, i.e. if they were cited by an external, reliable source. I think that's what the argument is. Maybe someone can tell me if I've got it right or not? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the gist of it, I do believe. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Since "notable" has a special meaning here at WP, I think that it is a poor choice of word to use in this discussion. Even so, notability relates to the suitability of the subject for an article in WP, not simply for inclusion in an article. There is a guideline for image use and choice at WP:IMAGE which should be applied here, as it would for any other article or BLP. Outside of that, I can see nothing that even suggests J's criterion for image choice in any WP policy of guideline. I believe this is a conflation and misinterpretation of several guidelines and policies into a synthesis of utter nonsense that serves only to avoid discussion on which images are appropriate for this article. This is a flawed strategy which will ultimately backfire. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean my position is based on "conflation and misinterpretation." The policy guideline (wp:image) is clear: "Contributors should be judicious in deciding which images are the most suitable for the subject matter in an article." The other policy (wp:blp) adds that images must be used in clear "context." There are several editors arguing here that any number of images that have little context within the content of the article would be perfectly fine, simply because User:David Shankbone took them. It's clear that our community editorial judgment in this case is failing, and given the wide latitude here in terms of possible images, that seems likely to continue to be a concern (as does happen with text, as well, hence wp:or, wp:npov, and so forth). Lastly, just because "notability" is a significant concept for article retention here doesn't mean the phrase "notable image" is a "poor choice of words." It's a perfectly valid and clear concept (explained numerous times above) that can help editors more neutrally decide which (if any) of User:David Shankbone's images should be included in his article. If you don't like that idea, you should probably explain why instead of blustering ad hominem everytime somebody here suggests it. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think "ad hominem" means, but I'll resist the temptation to show you. There seems little point in arguing with you here since you are evidently intractable and cannot distinguish between policies and guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether wp:image is a policy or a guideline makes a significant difference to the underlying argument for you? In any event, the guideline is descriptive, not prescriptive, and "judicious" selection of which images to use would seem to be common sense. As would the policy requirement that the images be in "context." I still can't make heads or tails of whether you're arguing against that, for that, both, or neither? user:J aka justen (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I will try to make it simple for you. Apply WP:IMAGE just like any other article. Apply WP:BLP just like any other BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Carefully chosen photographs that fit into the context of the article? That certainly makes your position clearer than spending your time calling other positions "bullshit," for future reference. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well let's get to the crux of this then - from the criteria people have outlined, this photo is fine for the article? It contains the notable individual, it contains other notable individuals we have articles on. Otherwise by the arguments outlined here, we have to remove all of the pictures on the Shankbone article because they are not used in any reliable sources I can find, simply on his blog and uploaded on the commons. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The talk page has a "gallery" of images which have been reprinted, used, or commented on by reliable sources. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Chuthya, again

Fresh off his block, User:Chuthya has returned to the article and is now using image captions as a backdoor around wp:rs for including references to pornography (as previously promised). It also looks like he's moving from wp:point to plain old wp:disrupt, and is edit warring to keep his harassment in the article. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason why this editor should ever edit an article related to Shankbone, ever. I suggest the next admin to read this topic ban him from David Shankbone, broadly construed. Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours. The community or another admin can consider a ban from editing the Shankbone article or something more extensive if need be. This edit during the last block was not heartening (particularly since the editor did not come right back and start up again), and it might be worthwhile to review this editor's contributions to see if they are really here to contribute or just stir the pot. As always I'm open to an unblock so long as the user in question agrees not to engage in the behavior that led to the block in the first place. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that Chutya's actions appear to be disruptive, I feel compelled to point out that this complaint appears to be based on flimsy material. The image, as uploaded by David Shankbone, is named "Friends eating lunch at the home of Michael Lucas on Fire Island.jpg"; Michael Lucas (director) is a director of pornography; and Chutya does not appear to have made any promise to refrain from introducing to pornography into this article. I don't think this is how we would deal with someone who added a questionable image to Robert Mapplethorpe. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The block is based on disruptive behaviour by an editor who is apparently taking cues on how best to harass User:David Shankbone through this biography. Using a vacation photograph as a backdoor to associate the article with pornography, without reliable sources, is a blatant wp:blp violation; the fact that you don't see that is quite peculiar. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Read my first sentence where I say "Chutya's actions appear to be disruptive". If you don't understand it, read it again. You seem to have great difficulty understanding what are reasonably simple sentences. Perhaps there's a friend or family member nearby who can help? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're a riot. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The block seems fine in the circumstances, but I don't think we need to do anything else - further misconduct probably can be treated without special restrictions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To Delicious carbuncle, who made the comment at 21:07, if you agree that "Chutya's actions appear to be disruptive" then I assume you are okay with the block, and if not then obviously feel free to object to it more directly. Your analogy to Robert Mapplethorpe is rather inapt in my view and I think you've confused one person in the Fire Island photo for another. Mapplethorpe is well-known for homoerotic photography, thus he is far more analogous to Michael Lucas (director) who is also known for homoerotic visual imagery (which is reflected in his article). "Shankbone" has taken some pictures of naked people and their body parts, but as the article on him points out, he is primarily known (to the extent that he is known at all) for interviewing famous people and for photos of clothed famous people, both of which we have pictures of in the article. If someone has a good reason why a photo of Shankbone on vacation with some topless men (including a known member of the pornographic film industry, which it was apparently very important for Chutya to mention in the article caption) bears inclusion in his BLP then by all means have at it on the article talk page, but I think it's clear that Chutya is primarily interested in disruption right now. If that continues when they come off their block then we can deal with it then as Ncmvocalist says. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

One additional point for the record as it were, in case we end up seeing problems from this user again, or want to take more stern measures now. The user name (as was suggested here) is apparently a well known Hindi curse word (perhaps a mild one, but whatever). I don't think there's any possibility of this being a coincidence, as the user has created this nonsensical page featuring the phrase "How can she slap?", which is apparently a reference to an Indian reality television show called Dadagiri. As the controversy section of that article states, an uncensored video from that show which appeared online and which lead to the "How can she slap?" meme also featured uncensored curse words like "chuthya" (or "chutiyah"--however one romanizes it). Point being this editor has a foreign curse word for a user name and a record of contributions that suggests they are not here to help write an encyclopedia (see their talk page and the general nature of their contributions for more on that). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to add my concern that the unblock "proposal" User:Chuthya has made on his talk is very troubling given that his edits to date appear to have been crafted specifically to try to get around wp:blp and do not appear to be motivated by an attempt to improve the article. He's been blocked twice now in the past day for using the article as a conduit to harass User:David Shankbone, and I think it's becoming clearer that this harassment is just a game for him. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request declined because the user appears to think the edit at issue, and his conduct in general, would be fine if he just used the talk page more. (It would not be.)  Sandstein  12:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

69.121.221.174

I brought up a sockpuppetry investigation against 69.121.221.174 because that user was engaging in behavior that I thought to be reminiscent of the previous Spotfixer sockpuppet TruthIIPower. Later developments in that investigation showed that Spotfixer had indeed edited with that IP. Therefore, that IP was blocked.

After an extremely angry email to me and some gradually calming-down discourse at User talk:69.121.221.174, I believe that the IP should actually be unblocked. From what the IP tells me, it seems that

• The IP belongs to a university residence
• A journalism class at the university brings up the use of "mother" vs. "pregnant woman" on Misplaced Pages every year, hence the periodic debate over that issue (new classes of journalism students taking that class) which led to my suspicions of sockpuppetry
• Other students at that residence were editing articles on cooking right before the block, and would like to be able to continue to contribute.

and I find this reasonably well substantiated by the user contributions.

I'm afraid that I made a mess of things by actually finding a situation in which similar behavior + same IP ≠ sockpuppet. I now find myself reasonably convinced that they are not a sockpuppet and should be unblocked. Awickert (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I would agree with you that it is probably reasonable to unblock, but not that you made a mess of things. One of the advantages of creating an account is not being immediately associated with everyone else that ever was at that address. It was a risk that didn't pay off. That doesn't mean it was a bad risk, just that it didn't pay off.- Sinneed 21:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the IP is used by a banned user then a block is entirely appropriate. Anyone who shares that IP who is not the banned user can create an account elsewhere (like the uni library) and then edit without further restriction. Thatcher 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If a journalism class has a yearly debate of "mother vs pregnant woman", why don't they just create a WP account for that purpose? A vandalising IP shouldn't be unblocked just because other people at that location don't vandalize. Heck, where I edit from is usually blocked, don't affect me any. Not sure I agree with a university class using Wiki as a debate project, but that's a different subject. IMHO, you were in the right with the block. Tainted Conformity (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

They couldn't just create an account - a wikipedia account can only be used by one person. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

True enough, I guess. Personally think an exception could be made in that type of case though, considering that they're not on the site to improve it as much as use it for class. As long as they had their class's contact info (name of the university & class) on the userpage, I personally wouldn't see the problem. Tainted Conformity 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: this isn't the IP of a journalism class, it's the IP of a residence where people from the journalism class have lived. Hence the two cooking-related edits right before the block. Also, I think it has been people inspired by the class, but acting on their own initiative, who have editied Wiki. Awickert (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I am involved in the "mother" v. "pregnant woman" argument on the opposing side the ip is on, he or she and I have been sparring) The ip has made many advanced edits inconsistent with a first go at wikipedia (signed edits on talk pages from the start, brought a case to Wikiquette alerts), appears to know the lingo very well and has a rudimentary enough grasp of policy to throw it around in arguments. This is also rather damning. It is conceivable that this is not a sock (or meatpuppet) of spotfixer but I would be very surprised. - Schrandit (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I do acknowledge that the IP was used by Spotfixer, which is why the block occurred in the first place. I am reasonably convinced however that while they edit with a similar intent, it is not the same person, and am concerned that we have blocked a whole ton of people who work behind the same IP address. But I understand Schrandit's points as they were my initial reaction to the situation as well. Awickert (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If a journalism class (or anyone else) is conducting breaching experiments on wikipedia, they should be told in no uncertain terms to cut it out once and for all, and should be blocked on sight if they do it again, even if it's years later. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Dschinghis Khan

On a somewhat lighter note, an editor has taken it upon himself to rename anything connected with that German disco-era singing group to Genghis Khan (pop group), on the grounds that that would be their name in English. He did this with no apparent discussion, and he ignored me when I asked why. And of course instead of a standalone name, it now has a disambiguation. So was this a proper rename under normal guidelines, or is he just being a busybody? And if it's the latter, I would like someone to move it back, since that would require an admin. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Technical point: the article actually could be moved back per WP:MOR. But triggering a move war would of course be bad. Wknight94 04:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that. But I wouldn't do it anyway unless there was consensus or if it was a mistake of some kind, which in this case it's neither. I noticed the guy of this notice. I just wondered whether we're supposed to translate a pop group's name into "true" English or if he just made up that rule. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages is not for a translation you just made up, the title should not be translated. There are many thousands of articles about non-English subjects which have non-English titles. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The exception presumably would be if the group was actually known in the USA as "Genghis Khan". As far as I know, they were really only known in Europe at the time, and the internet has given the group higher visibility, albeit nearly 30 years later. In short, unless the editor can find evidence that the group was widely known in the English-speaking world as "Genghis Khan", then it needs to keep its original spelling. Have I got that right? And if so, what's the proper course of action? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As evidenced in the editor's contrib's he also changed the name of their song "Moskau" to the Anglicized spelling "Moscow", despite the fact the song was sung in German (as was their original song, "Dschinghis Khan"; they were a group that named themselves for their first song.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that both titles should be returned to their original locations and the article move-protected (sysop only). Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not need to be move protected. Prodego 11:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So, the guy still has not responded. Should I just go ahead and move it back? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He claims they released records in the USA under "Genghis Khan". Sounds like some research is called for. When I get the chance. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat; also SPA and COI

Republic of Ireland postal addresses has, for some time now, had problems with an SPA editor, User:Garydubh, inserting COI material about a GPS/GIS system that his company, GPS Ireland Consultants Ltd, is marketing. This system isn't official and has nothing to do with the official post code system being introduced. On 20th October, a new editor, User:Secretary-whbtc, reintroduced the material about the "independent postcode". I removed it again. After I re-removed it a second time and posted to the talk page, I received this legal threat both on the article talk page and on my own talk page. The disputed material was also subeseqently reintroduced by another SPA, User:Ww2censorbastun (User:Garydubh has also been in dispute with User:Ww2censor in the past, who also tried to keep the COI material off the page). Can an admin take a look at this, please? Bastun 11:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Garydubh for making a legal threat. For the other accounts, I would suggest filing a report at WP:SPI. TNXMan 11:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Another legal threat, this time from an anon IP, on my userpage here, and on Talk:Republic of Ireland postal addresses. Bastun 23:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are obviously the same person or a group of buddies. Block'em all. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, but not by me. TNXMan 01:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just to note that there have been a number of unhelpful e-mails in this matter, presumably from the blocked editor(s), at WP:OTRS ticket 2009102310050555, to which I've now stopped replying.  Sandstein  19:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked Secretary-whbtc as a likely meatpuppet of Garydubh. Before this current dispute, this user hadn't edited since January. And now he shows up. Quack ... Blueboy96 19:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Guitarherochristopher Yet again.

Guitarherochristopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Further to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Guitarherochristopher and various warnings we still, IMO, have a major issue with this editor. Leaving alone the various misuse of WP:NFCC as previously warned and the endless WP:NOT#MYSPACE issues - again as warned and (typical example) It finaly looked like he was "getting it" by adding content . Alas Not.'. With a combination of MYSPACE attitude and misuse of NFC now being added to direct copyright violation I'm now of the opinion that we need to move this editor, sadly, away from the project. Input please. Pedro :  Chat  12:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking on the bright side, he's adding content to articles. Copyright warning issued. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now I look at it this is not the first time we've had copy-vio problems - User:Guitarherochristopher/Coldplay Releases New Album In 2009 and User:Guitarherochristopher/Genesis Band Member Gets Sacked Out Of The Drums and User:Guitarherochristopher/What Happened To Micheal Jackson?. See here Pedro :  Chat  13:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been issued literally dozens of warnings for various things. I've had this guy on my watchlist for some time. Support whatever action you see fit, Pedro. Tan | 39 13:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a block as well. Jauerback/_dude. 14:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd support one as well with the idea that he'd have to start showing some significant good contributions on his talk page to earn back any editing privileges.--Crossmr (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. Why are we enabling this:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#Guitarherochristopher
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive565#Guitarherochristopher, again
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#Block needed: compromised/shared_account
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#User talk:Guitarherochristopher
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Guitarherochristopher

Continuing to issue warnings, hoping that this time they'll end the disruption, is counterproductive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, I agree Floquenbeam. I have to say that this user realy, really does not seem to "get it" no matter what. Whilst a block from nowhere can seem overly harsh, in this case I really cannot see any positive input from this guy. Net negative in my opinion. A shame, but it is what it is. Pedro :  Chat  14:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We can't afford to check each edit by this person, and if he is going to keep using copyright material then we need to put a stop to it. If communication has not helped this person "get" it then a block is justified to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Chillum 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

ARGH, to hell with it. he's been here before, he's been warned, he won't contribute, he won't listen, he's been given help, he takes up peoples' time... just block him for good. A little insignificant _{(I have candy!)} 16:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I also believe an indef block to be appropriate, and have implemented one. — Jake Wartenberg 17:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont belive there has ever been an ANI for a single user 6 times!--Coldplay Expert 17:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You haven't met Ottava Rima, Giano, Beta or Child of Midnight yet, have you? Absolutely no offense intended to any of these editors. I'm jussayin'. Tan | 39 17:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No I havent are they blocked? and Im glad that you are;nt mad about me getting mad at you :)--Coldplay Expert 18:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup? I don't know how much this needs to be looked over or not, but there's a massive amount of new article cleanup that would need to be done to catch things published since what I saw the last set of warnings were, including a full new wikiproject where he was able to add talk pages, categories and priorities all in very short order. Honestly, it's pretty impressive work given the short amount of time available... past the fact that it might need to be deleted. A separate, larger article authored and added in the past 24 hours is already up for PROD under gleeful tag WP:HAMMER, but there are about 10 edits done to other pages that were done to link in to it. Since I have no privileges, someone with authority to delete and revert up to about 60 edits might be needed. It's that or a theoretical max of 60 extra AfDs in the coming week. I can slowly plow through each edit in the whole project space and determine their viability and status and it probably wouldn't take more than a few hours. I think. Depends on how many backlinks? In any case, it'll all have to be looked over for PROD, AfD, CSD or project deletion at some point regardless of other decisions... I'll volunteer to grind through all the new articles (I do actually know the subject matter), pending an okay or more input here. I'd be spending my time on AfD review anyway so please don't think I'm trying to strangely torture myself. Datheisen (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't much we can do at this point. The user continues to ignore the warnings; or in some cases acknowledges them but continues to not follow them. This user just doesn't see the point. I believe this user is trying to help out in subjects he's interested in (music/Coldplay), but doesn't know the proper way to do so. His treating of Misplaced Pages like a social networking site is also of concern. Netalarmtalk 00:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Probably resolved. User has place the "Retired" template on their talk page and stated that he is no longer active. Netalarmtalk 00:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be an issue of WP:COMPETENCE. I'm not volunteering, but is anyone prepared to offer mentorship, which although perhaps onerous, might turn GHC into a productive editor? Rodhullandemu 00:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not speaking from experience, but I'm thinking retirement doesn't null all his edits and articles created for deletion, so the manual parse of all his last edits of the past 48hr or so will need to be looked at one way or another. I very seriously don't mind. I'm sure you have some way to do a blanket delete over things, but he DID seem to put information in some of the new articles and that can't be ignored, as from what I see he can be very knowledgeable in what he contributes to and it could be a loss of some perfectly useful and notable Misplaced Pages entry information to delete, which I would object to. Even if no one else suggests, my view would be all edits going to need to be looked over by the same guidelines as any other. I guess there are a fair number of reverts to it wouldn't all be delete tags that would flood in. Does anyone object to my going through them all for possible revert/merge/delete marks as all normal separate articles like would be done with anything else? Or what special instructions might you suggest? Can't say you weren't warned about a ton of CSD or AfDs in that article category... Datheisen (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh jeez, just indefinitely block him and tell him if he does not play by our rules he does not get to "play" here at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Already indef. blocked by Jake Wartenberg.--Giants27(c|s) 01:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(reopening) I was asked if I could nuke all of Guitarherochristopher's pages. I've never used :nuke before; can someone else do it? tedder (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Wknight94 12:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sal the Stockbroker

Sal the Stockbroker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I would like someone to look at this before it becomes an edit war, Sal the Stockbroker is a know person and everything on his page has a source. But another user keeps redirecting it to The Howard Stern Show staff (this person should have his own page). Can someone please look at this. thank you // 98.117.40.154 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources cited are reliable, secondary sources. So there is no actual demonstration of notability, making the redirect of the page a defendable action (even though edit warring never is). Regardless, this is a content dispute, so please seek dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And upon taking a closer look, given that much of the content is quite disparaging, the lack of reliable sources renders a good portion of the article a BLP violation. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing sourced material

User:Ketabtoon is - once again - removing sourced material: . I have not reverted his edit. But an admin should take a look at it. In the past weeks, he has been continuously removing sourced material from various articles, pushing for POV, mostly in support of Pashtun nationalism or pro-Taliban positions. Meanwhile, I have tagged the article. Tajik (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition: I have just re-examined the edit. The source seems to be very weak, so Ketabtoon cannot be criticized in this case for removing any "reliable" source. Yet, admins should still take a look at the article. Tajik (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at the phrase that Ketabtoon removed in that edit: "He has also claimed that Prostitution is only done by the non-Pashtun ethnic groups and is unacceptable for Pashtuns, clearly showing his hatred towards non-Pashtun ethnic groups.". That's not NPOV regardless of the source, and was removed quite properly. Looie496 (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note to those interested or would like more detail and context of this, I've given a generic proposal to start on a clean slate and work article details out from scratch here and there's already some good faith. Hey, the article is only 2 days old, so we only have to look back that far to get a new starting point, hm? I didn't mean to pounce on and steal this ANI's ability to give input over there, I simply didn't see that this incident had been posted here, my apologies! Datheisen (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Tajik (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, Floydian and Colloidal Silver

I am having trouble with an editor that is consistently making accusations against me, and turning a talk page into a soapbox rather than discussing the article in question. This is further amplified by the fact that they are now taking it upon themselves to close discussions of mine rather than addressing them. This user is not contributing anything or discussing anything, just making fly-by-edits and accusing me of verbal abuse (which though I will not admit verbal abuse, I will admit I am becoming extremely frustrated with this editor).

I will start with my post that has been used against me in place of answering the discussion:

"Removing the rest of the about 11 sources that claim an antibacterial effect is the biggest fucking piece of point of view pushing I've seen on this website."

You will note that though I accuse Verbal of POV pushing (the "biggest fucking piece of it"), I do not make any personal attacks on the user, I am merely using emotional adjectives.

Verbal has on occasions twisted my words, accusing me repeatedly of verbally abusing editors, and of owning the page, to which he has yet to provide a diff for at my request. (In fact, his response to this request was to threaten me again with being blocked.

I was not aware that consensus was formed by linking to the hive mind, but I have seen little to no discussion, and no answers to the points I have brought up. After the editor in question reverted back and forth with me he quickly reported me for 3RR (Which though I admit I reverted 3 times, I was restoring to a version that had actually been discussed and had consensus (Essentially any version prior to October 20th) I have made attempts to be civil, often getting a response that shows the editor didn't even read my message, or more accusations and what I would interpret as benevolent threat

I have only insisted on the changes being discussed rather than forced. The editors who have made the changes have not once addressed my questions and arguments, and now the page is locked on their version, effectively meaning that they have no reason at all to discuss this. I find this horribly biased towards those editors and feel that the pre-dispute revision should be locked to actually encourage those editors to work towards a consensus.

I ask that no actions be taken without discussion by multiple editors, as fringe theory problems tend to be jumped on without a close inspection into the root of the problems. I have not notified Verbal yet. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 00:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You can write a bit about alternative medicine applications of colloidal silver in this article, but you have to understrand that an article like this will be written from a firm scientific point of view. If there is a peer reviewed article suggesting that some treatment may work, then you could write about that in detail in an article about alternative medicine, but not in this article as that would give too much weight to a fringe issue.

Insisting to include such edits in this article will always cause trouble. Then, when that happens it is fruitless to investigate who reverted who first, who insulted who first etc.. Count Iblis (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats the thing though. I'm insisting on keeping the status quo (at least until some consensus is formed amongst the editors who have been long term contributors to the article and its talk page) - It is not my edits that are controversial, its the edits of half a dozen fly-by-editors who didn't discuss anything, and now Verbal insisting on them staying without any sort of discussion. Rather than respond to me, he has made accusations, beat around the bush for a while, and now pulls out WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT against me, which is ridiculous, considering I was never given a response in the first place. When i ask what point I'm not getting, I'm told to stop or risk being blocked, by Verbal (They say this, they don't threaten to block me themselves). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Article is also being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Colloidal Silver.- Sinneed 01:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but its gone stale, as with the discussion elsewhere that I have attempted to spur. All of it dubious, the editors who made the changes will never discuss them, only revert back to them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 02:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ask for protection. If you have fly-by editors who don't discuss and who just revert, protection works to force them onto the talk page. After that, they'll either learn to act appropriately or find themselves blocked. I've gotten other articles to work similarly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, you could also stop uncritically promoting fringe theories. People might take you more seriously then. Just a thought. Skinwalker (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have proof for this declaration or are you just blindly categorizing me? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Since when has it become acceptable to not notify the subject of an ANI thread? (I have just done so.) In any case, Floydian is in the wrong here -- edit warring to insert fringe views into an article against the consensus of other editors, and being uncivil in discussion. We should not be supporting the principle that disputes can be won by simply refusing to ever accept defeat. It is very disturbing when admins function as enablers of disruption -- this is not what content-neutrality is supposed to be. Looie496 (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm only trying to show things as the sources show. Right now I am trying to get the controversial changes discussed before they are implemented. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why I am being uncivil to ask for editors to discuss such edits. Yes, I broke 3RR, I have admitted to that, and I admit to it being a mistake, but nobody has assumed good faith on my part because they've instead assumed that I "uncritically promote fringe theories". I've repeatedly asserted that I'm also representing its historical usage. I do not believe colloidal silver does work internally as it is promoted to (apparently it cures cancer, who knew?), but I do believe that if no studies have been done, then the article should say that no studies have been done. I've once represented homeopathy in trying to get an article represented as a source, but still discussed it on the talk page first without ever placing it on the article.

I did not notify the author because I was in a rush at the time. I apologize for that, but I have generally notified people I am bringing up on ANI. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 04:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the sequence of events, you will see that Floydian was involved in a cooperative discussion of trying to solve one of the ongoing causes of problems in the article in this section: Talk:Colloidal_silver#proposal to end the constant reverting caused by the conflicting interpretation of "colloidal silver". It was during this discussion that Verbal made 3 reverts on the article with absolutely no discussion of those reverts: . Verbal's first post on the talk page was here, AFTER Floydian called him on the reverting. Verbal's next post was after Master of Puppets posted to stop edit warring. Verbal's post was to deny any culpability in the edit war, and to complain about the disruptive contributing editors, mainly Floydian. If you look at Verbal's total contributions to this article, they are all reverts., . The 2 reverts on October 22 are almost exactly 24 hours after Verbals 2 reverts on the 21. After Master of Puppet's post about discussing changes, Verbal made a couple of posts commenting about his "reverts", but most of his posts on the talk page are complaints about Floydian and threats about how Floydian will be blocked. I would call Verbal's behavior disruptive, and certainly not conducive to trying to reach any kind of consensus. stmrlbs|talk 05:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Recommend Floydian take a long wikibreak from this article. He's very riled up, making wild accusations, running afoul of 3RR, and generally behaving like someone on their way to a block or ban. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Stmrlbs and Floydian have a problem in that their version of events is misleading, and their preferred version of the article has several policy issues and is opposed by consensus. I have asked Floydian to stop his disruptive behaviour and abusive, off topic, comments. Master of Puppets has warned Floydian that if he continues with this behaviour he will be blocked. We tried to unprotect the article, by Floydian insisted on his preferred version being restored against consensus. Any discussion is quickly hijacked and taken off topic by verbal attacks and insults (telling others they are behaving like "scum" and should "fucking" do what he wants, for example.) He also twice broke 3RR in attempting to force his preferred version, against multiple editors. The actions of these two editors, their general behaviour, and misleading comments as evidenced by this ANI report do probably deserve attention and possible admin action. In reply to the complaints that I have not entered discussion, I have been involved on the talk page discussing edits, and at the NPOVN post. I have acted properly, as have all editors on the "other side", despite extreme provocation, baiting, and disruptive behaviour from Floydian. Verbal chat 09:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Just a note that I address all of these accusations already in my first post. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid you misrepresent those in your first post. You were warned by an admin that further abuse, including a personal attack aimed at me and one at SA, or editwarring would lead to your being blocked - after you had already broken 3RR. Verbal chat 16:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Provide a diff of my personal attack at you, pointing out where I make the attack on you. I have provided diffs for every accusation I've made, I do not see you providing any proof. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• The revert behaviour across the article is unacceptable by both Verbal and Floydian and I'm inclined to propose a revert limitation on both; this would also act as a warning for all other editors who have involved themselves less aggressively. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Care to point out which policy my behaviour broke? I can see quite clearly which policies Floydian broke, but only 2 attempts to restore a policy and consensus supported version do not seem out of line to me. I have followed correct WP:DR procedure, and reported the matter to AN3 before it became a problem, however Floydian's continued warring led to the page being locked. Verbal chat 15:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • • • • See my forthcoming comment below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A side note: It was locked after a 2R "war" between Mangoe and Strmlbs, not as the result of my behavior. I stopped reverting after the warnings - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 18:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTE - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
        • No, I haven't broken either of those. Sorry. Verbal chat 16:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Thats for this discussion to decide. WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus-building has it written pretty clearly:

            "Someone makes a change to a page (any page other than a talk page), then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on talk pages."

            Seems pretty clear to me. You did not seek consensus, you simply reverted edits made by Eublides being bold. Just because I hit 3 first does not mean that you did not edit war. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I would happily self nominate myself to be banned from editing the article itself, to take it a step further. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Before handing out any penalties please remember this mess came about because of a blatantly provocative edit by Eubulides(on 08:02, 21 October 2009) who seems to have 'hit and run'. Without warning he removed the single most important piece of information about colloidal silver in the whole article. (i.e. that in-vitro studies demonstrate an antibacterial effect.) He called this info 'relatively unimportant' and said he was 'boldly' removing it. Clearly Eubulides knew he was lobbing a hand grenade into the article. (Is that some kind vandalism?). Admittedly there may be a fair case to be made for examining the context in which that particular info is placed, but it should never have been deleted outright. I share Floydians outrage about this.DHawker (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Those studies are not based on colloidal silver or its alt med use, which is where they were placed. Please tell us why they should be in the article on colloidal silver. Verbal chat 15:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I ask that we do not get back into discussing the content of the article here. There are plenty of venues for that, most of which nobody has taken the more than opportune time to discuss upon. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course I invite all editors here to join in on the talk page of the article, which is where I would hope he would have replied. Sorry for not being specific. Verbal chat 16:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to everything at Talk:Colloidal silver. Not one of the editors who made a fly by edit discussed the changes that were made. Yes, you discuss on the talk page, no you haven't discussed the changes that are controversial, only new changes that have come up since this issue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Bold suggestion: Topic Ban Floydian This issue (Colloidal silver) had already been discussed at the fringe theories noticeboards in September. When I noticed that, I sent out a test balloon there diff, which was shoot down almost immediately by Floydian, who called my source "clearly biased based on the wording" and went on to state that argyria, i.e. someones skin turning gray, "is cosmetic, and harmless". diff. Just a friendly reminder, Floydian. This case is from the 1950s, and during that time people were usually classified as white and black, and black people faced some obstacles (well, that's an understatements, but we don't need to get into the details of historic racial segregation in the U.S. here). And the person, whose homepage I had quoted, explicitly says somewhere that the skin discolouration caused by argyria can't be covered with make-up, so it is not a cosmetic issue. But more importantly, Floydian completely missed that the homepage I quoted in turn quotes 17 academic works and articles on the issue; the statement: "Colloidal silver (CSP) is not a new alternative remedy. It is an old, discarded traditional one that homeopaths and other people calling themselves "alternative health-care practitioners" have pulled out of the garbage pail of useless and dangerous drugs and therapies, things mainstream medicine threw away decades ago." appears well sourced. So, if you want to call this statement biased, then this appears to be another case of the usual medical bias against alternative medicine, or, more to the point: This "biased" view is the mainstream view, and the other view is the fringe theory view. Fortunately, we have a guideline for such a case: Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories, but unfortunately Floydian doesn't accept this, and is now apparently trying the use of confrontational tactics to promote a fringe theory. As far as I see it, we have three options: 1) Let him have his way, and have another bad article. I certainly would find this unacceptable, but on the other hand, I find this issue rather boring and wouldn't personally need the hassle of fixing. 2) Keep on fighting until either Floydian gives up or the whole issue goes to the arbitration committee. Since I've had previous experiences with Verbal, I think that he stands a good chance against Floydian, so let's get it on! 3) Or, and this would be the preferable solution: Topic Ban Floydian right away and save us all a lot of stress.

• P.S. If someone finds my cynicism offensive, I'll apologize, but I think I've figured out how Misplaced Pages works by now. - Question: How many administrators does it take to deal with an edit war concerning NPOV? Answer: Five. One to block/warn one of the involved editors, and the other four to figure out that they've blocked/warned the wrong one. - If you would now excuse me, there is an edit war on the German Misplaced Pages that I might want to attend. Zara1709 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I will only point to a peer reviewed source that describes adverse reactions to silver (including colloidal) in detail. You'll find it never once states argyria is anything more than a irreversible pigmentation of the skin.. However, the changes to the article are less important than the conduct of everyone around it, myself included (I'm no angel).

Once again, I'm not concerned with its modern usage as an alternative medicine. I'm concerned that it was an anti-biotic before the discovery of penicillin, and that it should be discussed as such, and that its use for decades as a topical wound dressing is just now winding down as they find better solutions that don't turn you into the tin man. And does nobody else see how hard these people are trying to not have to discuss the changes that are disputed? They'd rather have me banned. Seems like the simpler solution than following the dispute resolution process. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"These people" asked for you to be blocked because you broke WP:3RR twice. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I broke it once, for which I've apologized and would like to move forwards from, by discussing the changes on the talk page and avoiding the need to make edits and stonewall them. A fourth revert doesn't count as a new 3RR violation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Timeline: conduct problems

This outlines why I found problems with both Floydian and Verbal's approach, among other other editors:

• On 21 Oct, Eubulides (talk · contribs) made a series of bold edits between 8:20 and 8:30. He noted that it was in response to a suggestion made about 1 day earlier on the talk page. Floydian (talk · contribs) reverted these between 16:31 and 16:36. This was permissible in accordance with WP:BRD; Floydian also commented which should have started the discussion. 10 minutes later, Verbal (talk · contribs) instead of attempting to seek a consensus by commenting at that discussion, broke WP:BRD and reverted. This was highly inappropriate; at that point, even the NPOVN discussion only had 2 editors responses that had differing views to Floydian. Floydian reverted and made an aggressive comment at the discussion directed at Verbal.
• It was after this revert that the third editor commented at the NPOVN discussion, after which Verbal reverted again (again, avoidable) and endorsed as the forth editor. However, Floydian should have considered avoiding any further reverts at this point as it was potentially inappropriate, but nevertheless, did revert. Verbal then made a response at the discussion, to which Floydian responded 10 minutes later. No responses were made at the discussion after this time. Shortly afterwards, Master of Puppets (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) appropriately made a general warning to stop this cycle, and discuss it on the talk page to avoid the main page being protected. Floydian and Verbal made responses . Meanwhile, a fifth editor also endorsed the differing position at NPOVN.
• On 22 Oct, Verbal made an edit , which was reverted a bit under 1.5 hours later by Floydian . 5 minutes later, Verbal reverted again. Floydian partially reverted. Simonm223 (talk · contribs) made a partial revert without discussion, which was reverted by Floydian under 15 minutes later. Hipocrite (talk · contribs) partially reverted 5 minutes later, and Floydian made partial reverts 3 minutes later. Simonm223 again reverted.
• On 23 Oct, Mangoe (talk · contribs) boldly removed a section from the article. This was reverted by Stmrlbs (talk · contribs). Mangoe then broke WP:BRD and reverted. Mangoe finally opened a discussion and the article was then protected by Master of Puppets. Simonm223 and Verbal endorsed Mangoe's view; Floydian and Stmrlbs did not. Was this sufficient to form a consensus to remove the section?
• Later, during one of the discussions later, Verbal closed part of one discussion in which he was involved with Floydian, where Floydian asked a question. Floydian reverted the close and Verbal edit-warred to maintain it, even though he should not have been closing it off to begin with.
• Accordingly, it appears that a 1RR on Verbal and a page ban (and possibly 1RR) on Floydian is warranted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, I would have no objection to a page ban on Colloidal silver. However, I wouldn't doubt it if Verbal and Scienceapologist tried to persue having me banned from the talk page to completely bypass relevant discussion. Nevertheless I think you for providing a timeline to show the faults of both sides.

I only wish to object to one point though Ncmvocalist, and that is the number of people with a differing view on the NPOV noticeboard. Some of the comments weren't clearly endorsing a side and were merely comments. For example, Steven Schulz. Only Verbal, Baccayak, and ScienceApologist give differing views, and two of those are editors involved in the questionable reversions - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• I see no reason for any sanctions on me, I have acted properly and well within wikipedia norms throughout despite abuse, provocation, and baiting. Nothing in Ncmvocalist's timeline, which is incomplete, shows me acting improperly, so I don't see what problems it supposedly highlights. I don't see why this is still even being debated. It's pointless now Floydian has been given his final warning. Let's go back to the article, go back to improving the encyclopaedia. The "discussion" I closed was a violation of WP:TALK and merely consisted of more baiting and off topic, misleading, accusations - I asked Floydian to continue in a more appropriate venue. Other editors have also reverted Floydian, and we can assume that they woud voice this opinion on the talk page were it not already clear that he didn't have consensus. Verbal chat 19:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect for Ncmvocalist's analytic skills, it would probably be far more helpful to hear the opinion of an administrator like MastCell who has some idea about the medical content and editors involved. Mathsci (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would we need to discuss content? This is ANI. A 3rd party analysis is exactly what this needs, neutral of any previous knowledge. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes please get Mastcell to look at this this. Even though he managed to get me banned from the article I respect that he's usually fair in his judgement and has a long history with this article. The key issue seems to be whether comments about the in-vitro antimicrobial properties of colloidal silver (broadly defined) should even be in the article. A pretty simple question I think. DHawker (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Nikkolson

Has made an autobio in their own userspace and has now moved it to article space. It's a typical A7 autobio, I moved it back and told them why, they ignored this and moved the page back. Somebody please deal with this as I'd rather not engage myself in an edit war. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I went ahead and deleted the page, blatantly violation of WP:NOTE and A7. I will warn the user. ~ Arjun 23:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for reporting. ~ Arjun 23:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that in the process of doing this you also wiped out the history of User:Nikkolson? Looie496 (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that was the general point of all this, yes. Hersfold 01:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It seemed likely to be non-controversial, so I went ahead and restored the "talk" portion of the page, merging it back into his own. --Moonriddengirl 16:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:War began with Soviet offensive

This account seems to be created solely to participate in an edit war in Continuation War (page history:). The name of the account coincides with the first phrase of the paragraph he inserts in the article. Seems there are no contribution to other articles: . --Dojarca (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Italian With A Two-Way Radio

• Italian With A Two-Way Radio (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This user worries me, their fourth contribution is posting to Baseballbugs' talk page. Please discuss.— Dædαlus 06:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

He's done this before. Blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI filed, if anyone has anymore information, it would be welcome.— Dædαlus 07:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Also sock of User:Bad Snakes Ta Ta, per checkuser. Blocked now ^_^ - Alison 07:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. The I-troll-ian had said something about batteries. I don't know from batteries, except pitcher-and-catcher. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Another, User:Itallian With A 2 Way Radio. Please block.— Dædαlus 20:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Sijokjose

Between now and 2006 when he arrived, this user has made less than 50 contributions (so-far undeleted ones, that is); the majority of these edits were on the article Chempanthotty. As his talk page indicates, a lot of the content he was involved in was deleted, and he's also been warned for removing tags (such as speedy deletion notices), inserting spam links and recreating deleted pages. Recently, he seems to be continuing to insert spam , as well as removing maintenance tags and inserting original research . He has never responded on his talk page, and indeed, I fail to see him contributing to any talk page. The now-deleted User:Sijokjose, Sijo K Jose and Sijokjose probably says enough in that he is not able to build an encyclopedia in accordance with our policies. I bring it here for an admin or the community to classify the problem, and remedy it accordingly. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, some of the IPs that also edited the article engaged in problematic conduct, like plagiarising content from - that unreliable source seems to be what much of the article relies on. In any case, it would help if CU clarified whether there is (likely to be) any relationship between the user and the anons who recently edited the article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Brenont

Brenont (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) has been warned again and again for several years to stop changing regional spelling variations, and yet, the user continues to do it. Can something be done about this? Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My spot check of user's contribs shows a bunch of good gnome-ish copyedits. I actually didn't see any inappropriate spelling changes, though I didn't look extensively and I don't doubt their existence. Unless there are a lot of them or s/he edit wars about any that are reverted or contested, I wouldn't worry about it. If there are particular ones you feel strongly about, revert those, leave notes on the article talk pages explaining the issue, and try to work it out peacefully. I do see some talkpage discussion and the editor seems to be willing to discuss the situation reasonably. If you still think there is a serious problem, please post some diffs and maybe an uninvolved editor can initiate a friendly chat on Brenont's talk page or here. I don't think this situation calls for any real escalation yet. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama "death threat"

Thought I should report this. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Church_of_Sweden&diff=321725633&oldid=321647437 Cassandra 73 (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

These happen so often that maybe there should be some regular conduit between OTRS and the FBI if there isn't one already. Then such diffs should just be emailed to OTRS for referral. Once that is done, I'd say to administratively delete the diffs unless there's some policy against that. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, report it to the foundation or OTRS, then they'll contact the FBI. After that's done, delete the revision.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppets or meatpuppets

There are obvious meatpuppets or sockpuppets !voting keep and saying many personal attacks here. Joe Chill (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have started an SPI here.   pablo_hablo. 11:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

IPs are also causing trouble on the AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Being solicited here --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:DEL, AFD debates can be semi-protected in extreme cases, that would seem appropriate here. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's give admins the benefit of the doubt here: there's no admin on even the Uncyclopedia who would call it a "keep" based solely on the arguments presented there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the debate to protect against the extremely unsubtle canvassing attempt. This will hopefully allow the debate to be concluded on the article's merits rather than the behaviour of participants. ~ mazca 12:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way I agree with Bwilkins that the admins wouldn't have been at all influenced, but the personal attacks going on might have deterred other editors from contributing. Cassandra 73 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:EMCEEHOOD

I wanted at least one more admin to be following the activities of this editor, who appears to be determined to be offensive to Jews and may well be a white supremacist. I warned him on my talk page when he called me a "nazi" and I think the pattern of his edits and activities indicates that in the future he will be extremely offensive to all with whom he comes in contact, with little chance of any useful contribution. I think I'm a little too personally involved now to be able to act with the appearance of impartiality, and I understand the relevant policy suggests I can't pre-emptively block him, so I would appreciate it if someone kept an eye on this editor; my experience suggests that he will need further admonishment, if not blocking, in short order. Thanks in advance. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Cut-and-dry racism, there. Tan | 39 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate your taking a hand. (I frequently think I am too Pollyanna-ish about the possibility that editors will reform.) Accounting4Taste:talk 14:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like this happens to those who personally abuse Palestinians and exhibit constant racism towards them as a group and towards any testimony from them. And deny the Nakba. Articles concerning Palestine are very distorted as a result. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User Verbal at English Defence League

I am concerned about recent actions at English Defence League. Specifically, User talk:Verbal is editing in a way that comes across bias and is not beneficial to the article as a whole. My recent concern is the removal of a POV-check tag. Concerns have primarily stemmed from Verbal's pushing of "far right" and "political" as unqualified labels but also includes minor details (improper use of words to avoid, weight, etc) that are pretty easy to fix. This has been going on since September and both editors and random IPs have expressed concerns. Verbal and User: Snowded would not allow for the POV template disputing neutrality at the top of the article while discussion was ongoing since they considered it closed. Another user and I continue to not be satisfied with what appears to be bias so I added the POV-check tag here (I actually second guessed myself and replaced a smarmy comment with it). I went into detail (for the third time) here I thought that worse comes to worse I would find out I was wrong. Verbal inappropriately removed this tag which was both a request for involvement as well as a notice that there is a potential neutrality concern here.

Another user brought disruptive editing on the page by Verbal here on October 21 which was considered resolved (it was too general maybe?) here. I am not familiar with the other discussion involving the user on this page. Notification of perceived disruptive behavior was done throughout the conversation at User talk:Verbal#EDL disruptive editing against clear consensus and the following subsections.

The user has engaged in what I feel is inappropriate minor edit warring (not exceeding 3rr) and questionable tactics on the talk page. This is only opinion, though. I do feel that removing a tag requesting a check for neutrality crosses the line. I also wanted to say that I feel weird going to bat for an organization that has some dirty roots but editing against bigotry is just as bad as editing for bigotry here.Cptnono (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a repeat posting of a recent content dispute. My edits are supported by the consensus on the talk page, policy, and reliable sources. Cptnono has repeatedly tried to remove or weaken the description of EDL as "far right", despite many many reliable sources and several talk page discussions supporting this. I have yet to see a policy reason for removing the clearly correct term "political". Rather than coming to ANI, a better idea would be to bring actual policy reasons to the talk page or to go to WP:NPOVN. This appears to be a further misuse of ANI, as I have not broken any policies. Cptnono is strongly pushing for the article to follow the EDL line (as can be seen on the talk page), which would fall afoul of several policies - most notably WP:NPOV. I don't see any need for administrator intervention at this point, though as always I welcome more views and opinions. This area is hot with pro-BNP/EDL activists at the moment due to recent BBC coverage of the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, convicted for inciting racial hatred. Verbal chat 15:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If the dispute discussion over the article's content is continuing (thus no agreement), perhaps the 'tag' should be restored. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems the dispute is mostly resolved, apart from cptnono. Maybe he'll come on board too. I expect more debate on the talk page with a new proposal shortly. Verbal chat 15:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, ya'll. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a solution which Verbal has now got to. There are signs of a breakthrough on the content which may then move the tagging issue forward. Leaky Caldron 15:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There are clearly npov concerns on that article and still are and perhaps the two parties will never agree, there is nothing wrong with such an article carrying a npov template till the end of time. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the POV concerns are throughout the article and not just the "far right" and "political" terms. I also never proposed removing far right but just clarifying who laid that charge since they dispute it. One of my concerns was actually one that showed bias towards the group. The overall tone and instances of POV is why I thought a check tag was needed. The continuous locking down of the page by the editor, disputing that there is a dispute, and removing a request for input are just too much.Cptnono (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

{Undent}Verbal has been editing entirely appropriately at this page. There are some pov pushers who would like to down-play the extremely right-wing of this group or who would like to suggest that the group is not political. Verbal has not, afaik, broken WP:3RR or WP:CIVIL. Verbal's edits have not been tendentuous nor have they been pushing an inaccurate POV. This ANI is frivolous. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't be an issue here if the terms are sourced. Cptnono says that the terms are unqualified. I looked at the page, and I didn't see that the term "far right" was sourced. If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be an issue to source. Auntie E. 17:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Far right is in the sources. The group dispute it and it falls under the words to avoid guideline since it is a label. I think it should be included. It should simply say "by the British press" as it already does in the prose. Per Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition...Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral... There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources, ... -WP:WORDS Basically "The British press describe the EDL as far right. (currently in the prose) > The English Defence League (EDL) is an English far right... (currently in the lead). There are also concerns which I have reiterated over and over again.

I also feel Verbal is the POV pusher which can be seen from a quick ctrl+f search through the talk pages, his reverts, and the two other recent ANIs against him. This ANI isn't about that, though. It is about his deletion of a POV check template.Cptnono (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that now it is sourced, but disputed. I don't see a sourced label as a "word to avoid", do you have a link? Auntie E. 17:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC

So what POV do you claim Verbal's pushing? The other ANIs had nothing to do with politics, they were about his supporting NPOV in science articles that bothered some fringe promoters, so that's a red herring. Auntie E. 17:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Words that may advance a point of view#Words that label.

What? Leaky Caldrun's (the 21st) was actually this article. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be about politics. In this case, though, his goal appears to be to prove to the editor that EDL are bad and far right. Although he might have the moral highground it is still pushing a POV.Cptnono (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV template is clearly warranted, there is active dispute about the neutrality of it and I see no reason not to have the template. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the ANIs: I thought there were two on Colloidal silver, sorry, one was on another noticeboard. Still, it's not relevant here. This sounds like a content issue that I shouldn't have stuck my nose in. Auntie E. 18:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not related. I think the recent history is a problem but that is an issue to only be taken into account if an admin wants to consider a block. As it is, the article needs a POV check and it is a problem that Verbal is trying to control content by removing the dispute tag and then the check tag.Cptnono (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the NPOV template as I also suport that the article has issues and User Verbal has immediatly reverted my addition with an edit summary of.." One editor is not a dispute. Please get consensus for tag".. Under these commented discussions and there is a clear opinion that there is a NPOV issue I feel that User Verbal is continuing the behaviour that brought him here. There is clearly a NPOV issue and removal of the template under these conditions is excessive and unnecessary. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't mention that you also had issues, and there are no ongoing issues on the talk page that directly relate to the neutrality (cptnono brings up far right, but no one else agrees with him). I suggest you go to the talk page of the article. Verbal chat 20:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User Verbal is on or over the bright line that is 3RR on that article and I have left him a warning on his talkpage here . Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can say you didn't know I had issues with that page, I have commented here that the page warrants a npov template and then I actually added it, yo8u should put it back until issues here and there are sorted out, the wheels won't drop of the article if it has a npov template will it, I fail to see your reasons for rushing to remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have listed other reasons on the talk page a few times. I don't know why you continue to only focus on one part of the concern. Unschool has also proposed an alternative draft. On top of that, Off2riorob has also attmepted to add the template. Stop reverting.Cptnono (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I reverted to your pointless tag again. Why on Earth should I read this page to find out what content you want in the article? That's what the article talk page is for. You two are in a very tiny minority, and cptnono's repeatedly bringing up the same answered "concerns" is disruptive and annoying. Verbal chat

Your failure to address the issues and reverts (it obviously wasn't vandalism) are annoying. This is a great example of why you need to critically evaluate your own editing and talk page behavior.Cptnono (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As one of the contributors to EDL I want to say that regardless of what the final version looks like, it's NPOV will always be challenged by someone. There has been progress today but NPOV issues swirl around it. It's only a tag. It might get others involved. I'm pleased that Verbal thinks that the current version IS NPOV since the lead has been a major source of conflict between us (and others) for 10 days. However, I would ask him to concede that others will think it needs more work to improve the article's NPOV and just leave the tag on for a period. It's only a tag FFS and confers meaning only to those who seek it. Let's polish the article, not the top margin. Leaky Caldron 20:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User Verbal has self reverted and I really appreciate that, take a little (more) time and chat on the talkpage and try to find a compromise that is acceptable to both sides. Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest closing this as resolved. Lets say that this is not going anywhere here and close this drama, take a step back and over the next few days try to resolve issues on the talkpage a bit more. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any objections to this position? Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm wanting to see some admonishment but that is probably exactly why this should be closed. Discussion can continue on the talk page. Cptnono (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible legal threat by User:EastSideMiner

EastSideMiner (talk · contribs) may have made a possible legal threat at here (I am assuming while he was logged off). I have placed a warning template on his talk page, but I thought I would raise it here in case any administrators want to take further action. Singularity42 (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP should probably be blocked and a CU run to make 100% sure that EastSideMiner was in fact logged out when making the threat.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: user was notified here, but was subsequently removed by the user. Singularity42 (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats (or any kinda threat) on Misplaced Pages, is unacceptable. Recommend imediate 'block'. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There is some obvious sockpuppet/meatpuppet going on with this user and Minerfan (talk · contribs) and UKguy1983 (talk · contribs) from last year. All of the accounts have been trying to get this non-notable individual into Misplaced Pages. I think a reset of the article SALT is reasonable. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

They should be blocked for 'atleast' being annoying. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

^ wth? GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 17:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked EastSideMiner for the legal threat. I'll look more into it to see if there is socking going on. MuZemike 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Non free image partial deletion

An old version of File:Chrome 3.0.195.25 Misplaced Pages.PNG has a non free image in it. Is is possible to delete the old revision while leaving the new, more appropriate one?--Michaelkourlas (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards