Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive700

Redirection problem

Resolved

 – redirect created - 2/0 (cont.) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

sounds like it needs to be a dab page --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it's resolved. That exact phrase is used for nothing but Discworld. If you must you could add a "x redirects here, for blah see y" to the target page. Fences&Windows 21:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I just tried to create a redirect page for "Glorious Twenty-fifth of May" (to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld_%28world%29#Calendar) in honour of tomorrow and Terry Pratchett, and got an automated message that said "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." and directed me to request help from an Admin.

Help?

(I already added a bit to the calendar page)

Thank you!

--Boomonsa (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That generally means you're running up against the title blacklist, though I don't know why. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 01:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirect created, though I am not sure what filter the title was running up against. In return, you must tell me which book(s) it comes up in. I know I recognize the Reasonably Priced Love line, but all Discworld books merge into one memory file about five minutes after I finish reading one. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

See Legacy of the May Revolution for some details of the importance of 25th May to millions of people in non-fictional universes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, that sounds like it needs to be a dab page, not a redirect. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So make it a dab page, or redirect to a section of May 25? The part that needed an admin has been taken care of, and I am not sure we need to discuss the particulars of the content for the page at this venue instead of at the talkpage. Searching for that exact phrase turns up a bunch of Pratchett pages, but fantasy literature geeks are probably overrepresented on the web. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for intervention in the Nair article

A discussion has been going on for many days in the Nair article about the varna status, triggered by a caste fanatic called CarTick. But one of the users, MatthewVanitas has been indulging in one sided and completely biased edits even as the discussion was going on, ignoring other editors like this and this. Even after evidence was presented to show the non-reliability of his changes here, rather than acknowledging it, he resorted to attack the editor based on his surname. On top of this edit history of MatthewVanitas shows that he is incapable of being neutral in such situations, as he is constantly adding the offensive term Sudra (peasant varna) to non-peasant castes like Nairs and Kayasths, while protecting a particular well known peasant community (Maratha) from that term. I request some one more neutral to oversee the article and take in to account the views of all the users. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I second that opinion. Neutral changes were made to the first paragraph. But MV and Cartick continuously changed it to steer the language to their point of view. Opinion of the majority of the people in the talk page are ignored (then what is the need for a Talk page?). Some one please stop these caste fanatics from insulting the communities they are less tolerant with. Robbie.Smit (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

These allegations are unfounded. I'm a member of WP:WikiProject India and have been clearly outlining there my activities regarding caste articles, and the consensus there has been supportive of these long overdue fixes. A request was made at WPINDIA for help on a thorny caste issue in Nair, I arrived and updated the article with well-chosen citations, which have been reverted by the above complainants. To give context to readers not tracking India issues, a large number of Indian castes have "legendary" claims to be of the Kshatriya (warrior) mega-caste (varna). However, in the vast majority of cases a quick perusal of RSs on GoogleBooks makes clear that most of these castes are historically of the Shudra (farmer) varna, and the main people who believe their "warrior" status are the caste members themselves. Unfortunately, this is politically unpalatable, and since many caste articles are haunted by strong pro-caste POV, such mentions of the very term Shudra provoke massive retaliation, regardless of how many PhDs have written so and reputable universities have published their findings.

Referring to their specific claims, I did not attack a user based on name; his name is certainly not "Nair", so my general statement that "we have to watch out for POV from people who have are in a given family and want to self promote" has no way of applying to him directly. Second, the first complainant, CM, tampered with my RS references, changing the links from a 2003 University of California publication to some Victorian penny-rag, with no edit summary provided. I didn't catch the change until I converted the gBooks links to full cites: dif. In short, the article has several editors hell-bent on keeping any whisper of the term "Shudra" out of the article no matter what the refs say. My only goal is to balance out caste articles by insuring that "awkward truths" like a working-class history are not obscured by historical whitewashing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to say except that i am pretty confident nobody is going to care about this thread except may be give a shallow opinion and treat single purpose accounts that have no edits outside nair and nair related articles with others who have had a long interest in wikipedia in a broad range of articles with reasonable editing history. --CarTick (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the term "Sudra" is not used in normal occasions in independent India. Rather than as a varna, it is used more as a derogatory ethnic slang, like "Nigger" and "Kike". If a person calls someone "Sudra", he will face the same result when someone calls an African American "Nigger" in the US. MV argues that Nair was originally a farmer caste which falsely claim the Kshatriya status. But the sources other users given (More than 100 of them here) proves otherwise. At the most we can argue that Nair is both Sudra and Kshatriya. But in that case, the edits by MV and Cartick has been completely one-sided by ignoring the Kshatriya factor. As seen from here, Nair is even given as an example or mentioned as one of the only two Kshatriya castes in many of the well reliable sources. What MV and Cartick want is to completely whitewash this and bombard the article with the offensive term "Sudra" wherever possible. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"others who have had a long interest in wikipedia in a broad range of articles with reasonable editing history" - This is Cartick's main tool for sometime now. He makes thousands of rubbish edits in articles which he has no interest to camouflage his disruptive edits in caste related articles. Treat everyone equally. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Nairs were always regarded as Kshatriya in Kerala. But varna is not important in Kerala caste system. So it will be better not to mention it. Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This "Shudra is a slur" canard is overplayed; if you dislike it take it up with the academic community who continue to note this historic designation. So far as agreeing "both", that is exactly what CarTrick and I have been advocating; we are the ones pushing to say "the issue is contested, and A Group says X and B groups claims Y." It is your side which insists on making the whole page "totally warriors, always." If our edits are "one sided", it's only because we're adding Shudra cites to the existing Kshatriya cites, not removing the Kshatriya in favour of Shudra. The other popular canard is "oh well, varna doesn't matter so let's leave out the Shudra"; it's all well and peachy when one can use highly-contested Kshatriya claims (with the contestation ignored) to peacock a caste article, but once the messy realities of caste politics arise, then suddenly "varna isn't important"? Again, the clearly cited facts demonstrate that the Nair/Nayar have been considered Kshatriya by some (and in some cases), and or filled a "Kshatriya-like" social role, where in others they are strictly Brahminically categoried as Shudra due to lacking verifiable descent from the (generally believed extinct) ancient Kshatriya classes. The entire argument against this has yet to have any real basis than "Shudra isn't a pretty word, and we can't say anything that might hurt someone's feelings."

To those folks unfamiliar with India issues, again this is as though the Scottish clan "MacGregor" article went on about how the whole clan was noble Scottish lords and warriors, but then when confronted with PhD/university citations showing they'd been a class of turf-cutters and shepherds, with several kings arising from them and several periods of war where they did indeed provide soldiers, the clan-advocates would cry "you can't call them turf-cutters, that's calling them 'hicks' and inappropriate! And besides, their occupational history isn't important at all, let's compromise and just go back to calling them kings and warriors." I am still failing to see any reasonable NPOV argument for leaving out the well-document Shudra affiliation of the Nair. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please close this complaint, as I have withdrawn it. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to be closed after you've called another editor a "caste fanatic." WP:NPA certainly applies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree! Calling Cartick a "caste fanatic" is a blatant personal attack.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

he also wished three of us death. apparently, he later apologised to user Sitush. --CarTick (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not a death threat, per se. He stated he won't come back until you've all died, more of a "I'll wait you out" statement. Regardless, it's not civil at all. For now, let's see if he sticks with his retirement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that my name had appeared here, albeit rather tangentially. The issue will never go away either on this article or pretty much any other dealing with subcontinental castes. However, it is true that the original complainant ([[User:Chandrakantha.Mannadiar)sent me an email around the time of his "retirement" and it was a contrite one. I accepted it with good grace on his talk page, although I did not respond by email. I need to set up a separate email account for that sort of stuff otherwise I'm likely to be inundated with caste warrior attacks orchestrated off-wiki. I am not suggesting that the original complainant would do such, though.

Regardless, if any admin wants to see the email then just let me know where to forward it. In my opinion this is just another typhoon in a teacup, which is typical for these articles. It had its origins in frustration/lack of understanding of WP policies and guidelines + an apparent caste COI more than anything else. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

2011-2012 NBA season: possible vandalism?

Resolved

Someone put a section in all caps on the article 2011-2012 NBA season. I believe that could potentially constitute vandalism, though I'm not sure about it. I am requesting that an adminstrator take a look at it. I couldn't find out who put it there so I can't provide any links or diffs or notify anyone.

--ILikeWatchingFights (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing anything in all-caps currently in the article. Section headers in all-caps isn't necessarily vandalism; it could be a simple mistake. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The edit in question was removed by Ohnoitsjamie and it was not vandalism, just an anonymous editor not familiar with Wikipedia's editing styles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the information inserted was correct, though it wouldn't really go there. Kansan (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:JPTINS3000

Accuses me of hounding his edits, yet I explained him that in 2 of the 3 articles in question other editors have made the same edits like me shortly before or after me. In one case he was asked by another editor to wait a discussion and a consensus before reverting again. I had overriding reason for the edits and I've justified them. The user attacked me personally, [1] and admitted also that he was hounding my edits, something he accused me to do with his. --Severino (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment That is not a personal attack. If it is, you'll have to explain to me what it is that is either "personal" or "attacking" about it, because I'm not seeing it. The Hounding accusation was made in good faith, as far as I can tell (and I'm not at all confident that either of you understand what constitutes "wikihounding" -- I see no evidence that either of you are trying to be "intentionally disruptive"). There seems to be developing consensus in favor of at least one of the edits at issue and, either way, this is a content issue and not at all an ANI issue. I'm not sure what you intend to accomplish with this ANI -- I highly doubt anybody will review JPTINS3000's contributions and find any serious problems. The "banging head against a brick wall" line might be a bit much but, really, this is not a big deal as far as I can tell. Work it out on the article talk pages. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I concur with Ginsengbomb. Not seeing the attack here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• you haven't rearranged his words completely. but ok, if this and the accusation of "silly edit" constitutes no attack or another offence, i know that i'm entitled to post things like that as well.--Severino (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Severino, that re-arranging of words is of a common English idiom, referring to a pointless and unnecessarily onerous activity, as in "I am banging my head against a brick wall here". Hence my persistent inquiry as regards to your native language (which you still haven't been kind enough to relinquish!). JPTINS3000 (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

again, i will watch the outcome and find out which tone is accepted on wikipedia.--Severino (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, "silly edit" is not a nice thing to say, I agree. If there were some vast pattern of similar comments coming from JPTINS3000's corner then there might be an issue here, but it's a one-off comment. Neither my comment nor OhNo's constitutes a full endorsement of calling other editors' edits "silly". Use some common sense, please. I don't recommend you run around making pointy "silly edit" comments in response, lest this ANI post begin to resemble a boomerang. I also don't think "silly edit" is a particularly nasty "personal attack," if it even constitutes a personal attack at all, but that's somewhat beside the point.

If it helps: JPTINS3000! Never call anyone's edits "silly" again, you vicious, sociopathic guttersnipe! Now run along you two, get back to improving this encyclopedia like you were doing before this silliness. I was kidding about the guttersnipe bit; that was totally not a personal attack. Really, I have great affection for you. *hug* ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Jayen466 wikihounding User:Cirt

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.

What on Earth made anyone think that an issue so intricate, on a topic so controversial, could be satisfactorily resolved at ANI? Well, the resulting unfocussed free-form extended mess should by now disabuse anyone who had that idea to begin with. This is clearly a matter for RFC/U and/or Arbitration Enforcement, and if further action is needed, that's the direction to go in. At the same time, it's stating the obvious that bringing Scientology-related disputes into other topics is unhelpful, and all should strive to avoid it. It would be helpful for these editors to stay out of each others' way as much as possible, and try to see if issues they may come across with the other's editing can be resolved without their input. Rd232 ^talk 19:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

---

This is the second time in about 3-4 months that Cirt has asked my advice on handling the intervention of User:Jayen466 in discussion related to topics he is working on. Consistently, Jayen466 stalks the edits of Cirt and regularly makes accusation of bias in his work when both community processes and conversations. Another user raised concerns on Jayen's talk page and he refuses to concede that his interactions with Cirt are overly aggressive. The most recent accusations can be found at Cirt's talk page and at various points in conversations on the WikiEn-l: [2], [3], [4]. Also, he has been very active recently in positions directly opposed to Cirt in the conversations on wiki, such as the ungrounded comments made at Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Google_rating_of_this_article. The consensus on Cirt's talk page of users who have watched this happen off and on for a while is that this is in fact Wikihounding, this opinion can be found here.

I suggest that we place a topic ban on topics and talk pages directly related to Cirt's editing practices on User:Jayen466, with a work around of him being able to contact a designated admin, like myself, if he feels the need to point out verifiable issues with content that Cirt creates. Cirt regularly writes well founded articles, and though they are of a controversial nature sometimes, the continual aggression on the part of Jayen is causing Cirt a lot of behind the scenes anxiety where in many of the cases, Jayen's position is not based on solid evidence. I am concerned that their interaction, which Cirt is not deliberately seeking in any way as far as I can tell, is not placing either editor in a healthy situation with their relationships with other members of the community. Thank you for considering my request, Sadads (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Just going to state an observation here. All of Cirt's friend are going to show up here and say Jayen466 is hounding Cirt. All of Jayen466 freind's are going to show saying that it is shooting the messenger and that Jayen466's concerns are well founded. Lets try and avoid that. Also I just notified Cirt The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest that anyone without a preconceived judgement on the matter first read Jayen's summary of evidence and the resulting discussion. Then, if you have any futher questions, I would suggest asking them of either Jayen or Cirt, and then forming your conclusion. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• The only thing that "summary of evidence" is "evidence" for is Jayen466's creepily following Cirt's edits for years, drawing nefarious political conclusions, and then publishing them off-wiki to nurture a grudge, without addressing Cirt or any community process or scrutiny. That link you posted was already included in Sadads's original post, but within the larger and more serious context of Jayen466's hounding behavior. No editor without a preconceived judgment should miss the other half of the links: on Jayen466's own talk page about their mutual history, the WikiEn-l mailing list ([5][6][7]; where Jayen466 reveals certain prejudices), and the santorum page, where Jayen466 blatantly indulges in what he has most recently accused Cirt of: political activism, to be (time and time again) on the opposing side of Cirt in his content disputes. Quigley (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• You neglected to mention that Cirt was recently asked to stop editing Scientology articles because of community concerns about Cirt's treatement of associated BLPs. Jayen was one of the ones, if I remember right, who helped get that issue resolved. Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no connection with any of the editors involved with this and haven't looked at the allegations of wikistalking enough to comment on them, but I do feel that the mailing list thread is inappropriate. I have only been on the list for a few weeks so I'm not sure of the generally accepted scope of topics on it, but it really has seemed to me like it would have been better off as an on-wiki discussion. I also feel that some on list comments about cirt have been uncalled for and the thread in general has been the biggest stream of unjustifiable bad-faith assumptions I've seen. Kevin (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Comment by Cirt

1. I agree with the proposal by Sadads, it is the best way to resolve this issue.
2. Jayen has been following me for over three years now, and it is quite disturbing and disconcerting. I agree with this admonition that Jayen's behavior is disruptive and that he attempts to forum shop and foment opposition to me, in multiple different offsite methods.
3. The following of me goes back to at least November 2007, and is most obvious when Jayen shows up disturbingly soon after I create a new article where naturally Jayen would not have previously known about its existence or ever edited it.
   • 18 November 2007 - 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack - I created an article about this notable incident diff
   • Jayen shows up just 4 hours later diff
4. Jayen often shows up to disputes that he was not previously involved in, where I am a party, and takes the opposing position.
5. However the issue is not simply antagonistic behavior, but simply the disturbing pattern of following me, literally for years, and showing up shortly after me on obscure pages he is aware of because of said behavior — regardless of the position he takes on those pages upon showing up after me.
6. In fact, I would even agree to a mutual restriction upon both of us not to show up after the other user — if that is what it would take to stop Jayen from following me for years on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous and has gone on for long enough. Jayen should just leave Cirt alone. He shouldn't comment on Cirt's talk page and shouldn't edit articles created by Cirt. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats easier now than in the past since Cirt is not editing as many New Religious movement articles as often. I do feel that Jayen is doing this with legitimate concern for the project policies. I feel the issues Jayen466 raised should be examined.The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I would better believe that Jayen466 did this "with legitimate concern for the project policies" if he raised each grievance he had with Cirt on the respective talk pages when the issue was current. But he did not, instead dropping them into his little box of anti-Cirt material to share and campaign among disgruntled editors. As a result, many of the articles in which Jayen466 makes complaints about Cirt's behavior, such as Kenneth Dickson and Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant, are long deleted; we would have to take Jayen466's word for a lot of his accusations, which obviously cannot be done. Whenever one of Jayen466's complaints is disaggregated and analyzed, such as most recently done on santorum's talk page, it is Jayen466 that is found to be acting against community norms and consensus, not Cirt. Jayen466 has "issues" alright, but they're dark and personal issues with another editor, rather than any transparent concern about policy or content that we can seriously discuss. Quigley (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying Jayen has handled the situation perfectly. Cirt and Jayen, have a long history on here which has been tit-for-tat on both ends for a long time. I think its dishonest for Cirt to play helpless victim here as its a manipulative tactic that shifts focus away Cirt own actions. I have defended Cirt when I think unfair attacks are launched but I also note Cirt is not always an innocent party. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

ResidentAnthropologist, please note that I have offered to agree to a mutual editing restriction from following each other from new article creation and pages where the other has not previously edited - even though that was not the original proposal by Sadads. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think thats something Jayen should consider. I do think that Jayen intent has been and has always been to uphold the letter and spirit of policies particularly that of BLP. Your own choice to edit controversial areas means that people will raise concerns when they feel policy is being violated. I consider both of you good Editors and valuable ones at that who I have spent alot of time on Wikipedia with. So forgive me if you feel like I am straddling the fence here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think Jayen should really stop with any off-wiki commenting or discussions on WikiEn. However, I do feel that some of his concerns about Cirt are valid and shouldn't just be ignored under the pretext of "hounding". One area of concern that Jayen raised was the Corbin Fisher article that Cirt created in December of 2009. In this edit he made earlier this month, his summary stated that he was putting things in chronological order when he was actually also removing a section of the history that was critical of the company and had very valid references to substantiate it. I have since re-added the section in a slightly edited form, but I think Cirt's removal of it with a misleading edit summary does show a sense of partisanship on Cirt's part and is an understandable cause of concern by Jayen. Silverseren^C 01:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Silver seren, I have since removed that article from my watchlist and your edit makes sense. However, I agree with Sadads that these "issues" do not have to be raised by Jayen through direct interjection, and if he truly feels the compulsion to follow my edits constantly for years it is best for him to do so by approaching third party editors such as Sadads, who are less involved. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that Jayen is not going about this the right way, but I also agree with ResidentAnthropologist that Jayen is probably doing this with the best intentions and is concerned with your style of editing. Silverseren^C 02:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "Partisanship" in what way? That did not seem to be an ideological edit at all (contrast Jayen466's at santorum). If you are suggesting that Cirt has a conflict of interest with the company, then you should provide comprehensive evidence at the appropriate noticeboard for that insinuation, or not keep repeating it until it becomes harassment. Anyway, that edit seems justified because near to none of the sources in the material removed were reliable, most of them being blogs; and that section of speculation was arguably a fringe issue. Not that Cirt couldn't have been a little more clear in his edit summary, but he apparently made a talk page section a few days before warning against the insertion of shoddily-sourced material. The way Jayen466 presented the Corbin Fisher issue, especially juxtaposed against santorum, it had a subtone of "Cirt is expanding articles about gay topics; isn't that gross? Shouldn't we punish him?" And that is completely unacceptable. Quigley (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I think you need to calm down. Your comments here are showing that you are either really defensive with Cirt or you really dislike Jayen, either way, I think you should take a step back from this. I'm friends with both of them and am trying to find a proper way to mediate this. I don't think anyone should be "punished" for any of this, that's not how we do things. I believe an interaction ban is probably the best way to do things and, if either of them feel that it is very necessary to bring up something about the other, then they should go through a third-party administrator to do so. Silverseren^C 02:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree with this suggestion by Silver seren. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I will recuse myself, then. However, I should note that I have not interacted with Cirt or Jayen466 prior to Jayen466's crusade to delete the santorum article, the excesses of which have driven more editors than me to exasperation. Quigley (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Then let me note that there are a number of users, myself included, who have exhibited concern on the Santorum talk page about the article. It's not like Jayen is the only one. Silverseren^C 03:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• If Jayen could stop trying their attempts to redo or rename or vanish Santorum (neologism), that would be a nice start already. It's pretty clear from the talk page and the various AfDs that there is no consensus for what they want, and repeated requests easily suggest an all-too personal interest--not in santorum, of course, but in one of its writers. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think discussion on the Santorum page is so messed up as it is that there's no way to get any proper consensus on anything and there are numerous people who feel that the page is just an attack page against Santorum. Such a belief has nothing to do with having a personal interest with it, though it is possible. Silverseren^C 02:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• The page is not "messed up"; it is thoroughly referenced, has withstood three AfDs with a strong mandate to keep, and endures through overwhelming consensus Jayen466 and friends' multiple disruptive attempts to stub, split, and otherwise disfigure it. Jayen466's behavior on that article's talk page should be more closely examined. Quigley (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have no love for Rick Santorum's politics at all, but that page is horrid. The "neologism" was purposefully created with the intent to sully Santorum's name via web searches, and those in favor of retaining that page are aiding and abetting that artificially-constructed and very nasty slander, IMO. Tarc (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• So the editors who have created and edited Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories are "aiding and abetting that artificially-constructed and very nasty slander"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that an interaction ban is called for. Jayen's been asked to step back from his pursuit of Cirt before, but he keeps following Cirt around. The personal innuendos against Cirt show that Jayen is not approaching their differences with a dispassionate interest. Almost every time Cirt creates an article appears to work on it, and often to criticize Cirt. That's disruptive harassment.   Will Beback  talk  02:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Will, please provide diffed evidence of this assertion, preferably from the last half year, since my last run-in with Cirt on this board, or retract it. --JN466 05:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Pardon me if I note that your opinion of Jayen should be taken with a grain of salt considering your past interaction with him and myself in the Larouche subject area. Silverseren^C 03:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• By that logic, the comments from you and Jayen46 at WP:AE should also be "taken with a grain of salt". As it happens, I've also been followed by Jayen to a number of topics which is why there's been conflict between us in the past, but the situation with Cirt is far worse.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Talk of interaction bans sidesteps the real issue here, and that is if Jayen's concerns about Cirt's editing related to certain articles holds water or not. We probably should open a separate thread to give the community a forum to discuss Jayen's evidence on Cirt's editing and decide if it is actionable or not. If the community decides there isn't anything to his evidence, then interaction bans might should be on the table. Cla68 (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

They are separate issues. But if you think that Cirt is genuinely acting as an advocate for a gay porn company, some assorted politicians, and a neologism then that should be considered separately. Bringing even valid complaints doesn't justify invalid behavior.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

My last run-in with Cirt on this board is here, for reference: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive656#Potential_WP:CANVASSING_by_User:Cirt. This present discussion is much like the last one, which arose in the context of an AE thread where Cirt wanted to bar another editor, User:Delicious carbuncle, from ever commenting on his editing again, claiming to be "Wikihounded". It succeeded, until I pointed out that Cirt had blatantly canvassed. The closure was appealed, overturned by an arbitrator, and Cirt was asked to step back from editing Scientology, based on a long history of wilful NPOV and BLP violations, involving both egregious puffery for those favoured, and poorly sourced derogatory material for those disfavoured. This is exactly what Delicious Carbuncle had said, and was the whole reason for Cirt’s attack on him.

It became apparent that Cirt has a long history of using AE and ANI to get anyone messing with their articles, which are invariably promoting one side or another, blocked or banned from commenting. I had expected no different this time. (And of course, Will Beback is here again, as always. He himself uses much the same tactics, as in his current attempt to get Cla68 banned from an article he wishes to own. Not one editor there has backed him up.)

The reason Cirt keeps getting into trouble with a whole host of editors, all of whom are said to be "WP:WIKIHOUNDING" them, is because of the blatantly promotional nature of much of their work.

"Now more than ever we need a strong voice in the state Senate and Jose Peralta will be a senator we can be proud of."

 —U.S. Congressman Joseph Crowley

• Writing a flattering biography of a political candidate (because of Scientology of all things (!)),
• with this blue call-out box
• AND getting it featured on the main page 3 days before the election?

And then cry "Wikihounding" in defence? Since when is this project in the business of promoting political candidates at elections?

As for Kenneth Dickson, another puff piece for a political candidate Cirt favoured on ideological grounds, no one has to take my word for it. Here are the comments from the AfD:

AfD comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delete As noted above, the article is highly promotional. Example: the twice-repeated assertion that "Dickson beat Joel Anderson in votes cast in the Republican primary in Riverside County, California, but Anderson won the election itself; with Dickson receiving 20 percent of total votes." Sorry, he didn't "beat" the other candidate by doing better in one area of the district; he LOST the primary election, rather badly. Like others here, I am annoyed that my previous comments disappeared into the void when the page was blanked. I am curious whether Cirt was the administrator who did that; if so I feel it was inappropriate, since Cirt is the author and primary editor of this article and thus is not neutral. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Delete - my !vote was removed when the first version of this nom was deleted, so I'll re-register it. For those claiming that the number of sources verify the notability of the subject, let me remind you that the sources used to justify his notability need to be about the subject himself, not the school board/election/whatever else he's been a part of. I don't want to minimize Cirt's work, but I just don't think Kenneth Dickson's accomplishments warrant an article. If he wins a major election at some point, all well and good, the article can be recreated. But he hasn't yet. Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Delete This reads like an advertisement for someone with an eye on political office. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Delete. Nominating this article for deletion the first time around was one of the first times I got involved in an XfD, because the article is so outrageously overblown and pufftastic that it's almost a self-parody. His kids' high school grades? His former boss said that he "did a 'great job'"? "He was very much a team player, always asking, 'What else can I do to help?'"? The guy is a local school board member, fairly average attorney, and political primary also-ran. Like anyone who is on a school board and runs for a local political job, his local papers have occasionally mentioned him. I give Cirt credit for writing the best-formatted, most thorough, best-MASKed article imaginable on this generally unknown local personage. Still, just as we do our best not to let a crappily-formatted article from a poor English speaker sway us toward deletion, the underlying (non-)notability of Kenneth Dickson cannot be affected by purple prose or by fifty footnotes to minor local press clippings marshaled in two columns. Minnowtaur is right: he is no more notable than "virtually every small-town alderman, every high school quarterback or point guard, every owner of a local business, every Rotary Club president." I.e., not particularly notable within the context of an encyclopedia of global scope. I'm sorry so much work went into the article, but that's just the cost of doing business. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Delete. The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NOTNEWS, and, with all due respect to Cirt, the article is a classic example of WP:MASK. Location (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Delete—he doesn't seem to have done anything which qualifies him as notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 07:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Delete. Clearly fails WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:POLITICIAN by a country mile. Herostratus (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Delete - The person fails the WP:GNG notable criteria for significant coverage in multiple sources. There is no apparent coverage outside of the single source -- a local community newspaper. The majority of the article attempts to establish WP:POLITICIAN, but a careful reading shows it is a WP:MASK for non-notable community service.— Cactus Writer (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what's alleged above, I have neither edited Santorum (neologism), nor proposed it for deletion. I joined a mailing list discussion that was ongoing for some time before I joined it. I have pointed out what I think are Cirt's googlebombing attempts in the article, specially creating three templates that add 250 inbound links to the article, and pointed out the coincidence in timing of Cirt's interest in the article: just after Santorum announced he might be running for president. I loathe Rick Santorum and everything he stands for, but I think the article is partisan and immature, and not a credit to this project. I'll take no further part in that discussion, here or elsewhere. --JN466 05:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: Jayen keeps making this bad faith comment about "Cirt's googlebombing attempts". Please see this comment by SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) about Google page ranks: "Internal links are not used to calculate PageRank. Please don't propose that as some reason to undo another users work.". Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: Then read the very next comment on that page: Oh, you are so, so wrong. If internal links weren't used by google, half the of the wikipedia would have no google rank at all, they're quite often only linked internally, and further I've seen ranking change as I modify the internal links (over some weeks.)Rememberway (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC) [8] Were you unaware of it? --JN466 05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was. If that is the case, my apologies about that. I am sorry. It was not my intention. And it was not my reason for creating the templates. -- Cirt (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mmph. Admittedly, I had never read the [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive656#Potential_WP:CANVASSING_by_User:Cirt prior ANI discussion] before and Cirt's responses there (and the lack of understanding of his own mistakes) are greatly concerning. I'm afraid I will have to pull back my support for the interaction ban. I won't be opposing it, but I can't seem to bring myself to support it at this point.

On a separate note, what is the best community forum to go about discussing the points that Jayen raised on Cirt's talk page to see whether they are valid or not? Silverseren^C 05:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Silver seren, I responded, on my user talk page. If you have additional questions, you can ask me, there. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you did, but I feel that some of the points Jayen made are things that should be discussed in a wider community forum (of which your talk page is not) in order to determine their validity. That is why I am asking which forum would be proper for such a discussion. Silverseren^C 05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed: mutual interaction ban

To avoid getting into a dispute over who's to blame, it may be desirable simply use a mutual interaction ban. They should just stay out of each other's way.   Will Beback  talk  04:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I will agree to this mutual interaction ban. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Jayen has followed the dispute resolution process to the letter. I don't see a good reason to propose a "mutual interaction ban" before addressing the substance of his complaint. Cla68 (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the right dispute resolution to deal with en editor who harasses another editor by following them around and sniping at all of the contributions? He's been asked repeatedly to stop, Cirt has tried to avoid him, etc. This appears to be the next step in dispute resolution.   Will Beback  talk  05:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please. Recent ones. --JN466 05:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Cirt is just back from a two-month Wikibreak, and has edited only sporadically since January. One of the effects of harassing someone is to make them go away. This isn't a recent problem - it goes back years, apparently to when you both were editing the articles about Rajneesh and his new religious movement. I see for example, that when he created Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System in November you quickly followed him and apparently engaged in unhelpful editing.[9] Also in November you followed him to another article he'd written, Scientology (James R. Lewis book).[10]   Will Beback  talk  07:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a book I have on my bookshelf. The article had major NPOV problems, as pointed out by User:DGG here, and those discussions were in February 2010. The Erhard article came to my attention through an AfD. I voted Keep on the article Cirt had written, but found some omissions that I rectified. That's normal editing, Will. --JN466 08:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Deal with the issues, don't restrict an editor who is following procedure. Would you have preferred him to open an RfC as a first step? →StaniStani  05:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I responded to the points raised at my user talk page. My response was "good enough" for the user that initiated the issue. -- Cirt (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If you agree that we had a satisfactory discussion in line with dispute resolution policy, why do you seek an interaction ban? And there is one point which I would have liked you to clarify, though you did not. I thought I wouldn't press the point, but since we are here: This post about how Kenneth Dickson would be the best candidate is by a contributor named Xenubarb. She also wrote about it here. Here the same contributor, Xenubarb, says, "I helped Cirt acquire some photos of politicians for the Jeff Stone/campaign articles." Do you deny having started the Dickson article here in Wikipedia specifically to support the campaign she launched at that forum? And do you deny having made the edits to Jose Peralta, Joel Anderson, and Hiram Monserrate for the same reasons? --JN466 06:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I seek an interaction ban because you have been following me now for over three years, and it is quite disturbing — regardless of the outcome or position you take in disputes you mysteriously show up at. As for the Dickson article - it had been my intention to improve the wiki articles on multiple individuals. I wish that discussion about those you mention had been raised on-Wikipedia, earlier, instead of saving them up to use now. -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to be responsive to those that raise concerns politely in a good faith manner, on-Wikipedia. But it is difficult to do so when those concerns have not previously been raised, on-Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have mentioned my concern about the Dickson article before, here. The Peralta connection I only became aware of recently. I am asking you politely: Do you deny having created the Dickson article here on Wikipedia to support Xenubarb's campaign? --JN466 06:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I recall I became aware of the candidates through following the news, and previously decided to improve the articles on them. I later contacted her for assistance with free-use image help, that was all. -- Cirt (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

However, I restate again that I always strive to defer to community consensus and on-Wikipedia processes — even when they are contrary to my views. I have changed my behavior. I post to talk pages of multiple WikiProjects with notices of new article creation. -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's good. It still leaves me concernd -- your article on Dickson was so promotional as to elicit the comments quoted from the AfD in the collapsed box. Your revised article on Joel Anderson, the other candidate standing against Stone, ended with the words

"a rock-solid conservative that gets things done in Sacramento".[28] Anderson also received endorsements from the California Republican Assembly and from Congressman Duncan Hunter.[29] In his endorsement, Congressman Hunter called Anderson "a great conservative leader who has fought to strengthen the economy by supporting tax credits to encourage new hiring and by eliminating excessive regulations on businesses."[30]"

You did not create a similar article on Jeff Stone, the third candidate, whom Xenubarb did not want to be elected, extolling his virtues and endorsements. He does not have a Wikipedia article at all. Before the Peralta election, you added only positive material to his BLP, and only negative material to that of his opponent, Hiram Monserrate. And you got Peralta's article on the main page, three days before the election. That's a lot of dedicated work done on Wikipedia to bias our coverage in favour of one particular side. So please understand that if you do a similar amount of dedicated work covering the campaign against Santorum, and that work is highly controversial on a Wikimedia mailing list because of perceived bias, it raises an alarm bell. And please understand that I am not upset about the Santorum article because you have written it, but because of what it is. That it's written by an editor with a history of political bias adds something, but it would be just the same if someone else had written it. --JN466 07:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you actually recall any recent interaction at all between us? I think the last one was several months ago, on the Werner Erhard talk page. Apart from that, I cannot recall having corresponded with you this year. --JN466 07:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I already stated I agree with you about not nominating to DYK articles relating to elections, prior to those elections. I already stated I have taken the articles you mentioned off my watchlist. I already stated that I post about new article creation to talk pages of WikiProjects, specifically to get more on-Wikipedia feedback. -- Cirt (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. --JN466 07:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting this off the drama board

The interest taken by Jayen466 in Cirt's editing seems exceptional, to say the least. To avoid further disputes over asserted wikihounding, I suggest that Jayen be required to utilize one of the following options:

1. Stop interacting with Cirt.
2. Open Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt with whatever concerns have been accumulated so far, then stop interacting with Cirt unless the RFC indicates a consensus otherwise.

Cirt would also be directed to stop interacting with Jayen, except in the context of responding to an RFC, if any, and as indicated by the RFC. This resolves the problem, without requiring a consensus determination at AN/I of whether Jayen's complaints are valid, which will be difficult, if not impossible to achieve. Chester Markel (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: My reply to queries raised by Jayen on my user talk page was "good enough" for him — that is until the above proposal of an interaction ban was raised, here. Then, he raised more issues here, in response. I would very much like to be able to respond on-Wikipedia on my user talk page or on article talk pages to issues raised, , and I will strive to address them. I have modified my behavior. I defer to community consensus, even when it is contrary to my stated opinion on those issues. I engage in quality review processes including GA, peer review, and FA. I have posted about my new article creation to WikiProject talk pages. I will continue to try to improve being responsive to concerns, when they are raised to me on-Wikipedia on my user talkpage or an article talk page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I approached Cirt on their talk page was because I was considering filing an RfC/U. Contacting an editor on their talk page to resolve the situation is a prerequisite step for that. However, I considered the response I received from Cirt on their talk page satisfactory; not stellar, but satisfactory under the circumstances, and had decided not to take the matter further. --JN466 07:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayen, for saying my response was satisfactory - I appreciate that. I will strive to work towards more stellar responses in the future, and modify my behavior with regard to seeking out additional feedback of my quality improvement work, as I have already indicated. -- Cirt (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're welcome. --JN466 07:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Jusdafax in support of interaction ban for Jayen466, and raise the concept of a topic ban

I support the interaction ban, since it is my view that Jayen's Off-wiki anti-Cirt activity at 'Wikipedia Review' shows evident bad faith, not to mention years of stalking Cirt On-wiki dispite clear policy against it. To be specific: It is my carefully considered opinion that Jayen466 is in long-term multiple violations of sections of WP:HARASSMENT, namely 'Wikihounding' and 'Off-wiki Harassment', and I think Cirt is way too nice to offer a mutual topic ban in the face of Jayen's highly dubious record.

In addition, I commented Cirt's talk page yesterday when I noticed the thread by Jayen466. Here's where this gets very interesting to me personally; this reply by Jayen466 where he states at the end to another editor that "Your and Jusdafax's past interests in Scientology are duly noted."

Huh? "Duly noted?" I must confess, I was puzzled to remember any edits to "past interests in Scientology" unless he meant a fairly minor player whose article I have worked on more in the past than recently, Ford Greene, an attorney who won a couple cases against Scientology in court but who has numerous other facets to his career. (I am a former resident of Marin County, CA, and am aware of Mr. Greene as a local political figure.) After leaving a brisk reply to Jayen466 on Cirt's talkpage, I went on with my day until it hit me that I edited David Miscavige a couple times way back there. A search of the edit history of Scientology's leader indeed revealed a couple edits with the last in August, 2009. I believe I have several talk page edits there from that era on the Miscavige page about a series of articles in a newspaper in Florida, but I honestly can't recall any others. Possibly one or two at the article about the headquarters Scientology has out in the desert? Perhaps way back there...

So allow me to expand on my 'brisk reply'. It very much appears that either Jayen's memory is extremely long regarding even the most casual Scientology editors, or he actually keeps some kind of enemies list regarding them and issues veiled threats as a chilling effect to shut them up. All in all, not a very pretty picture... Jayen knows more about my editing Scientology than I do myself.

Perhaps Jayen466 can explain himself regarding his surprising knowledge of my extremely skimpy portfolio of Scientology edits, but if you ask me, it totally fails the smell test per WP:DUCK. This sure looks like a case of the pot (Jayen) calling the kettle black. I've now seen enough to raise the issue for your consideration regarding a topic ban on new religions for Jayen466. As I see the facts from personal experience, enough is enough. Cirt is a valued editor, more than willing to work with others, and is too nice a guy if you ask me. The same can not be said of Jayen466, who until the past day or so I have had no interaction whatsoever, as far as I know. Again, I say to the Wikipedia community, enough is enough. Jusdafax 06:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, can you explain this behavior? -- Cirt (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This issue seems far too complex for definitive resolution here, except as far as non-interaction between the users, excluding further dispute resolution processes, since the number of accusations and counterclaims is immense. It should really be taken to RFC, or arbcom. Chester Markel (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Chester Markel, I have already said I would agree to non-interaction, as you suggest. I will strive to do so, even if the other party refuses to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Cirt is still too nice. I strongly disagree with Chester Markel. Let's hear from Jayen466 first regarding his obsessive knowledge of people who edit Scientology articles even very casually and long ago. I daresay I am not the only editor here who would find his reply of interest before we bump this up to ArbCom. Jusdafax 07:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I remembered you posting about Cirt's Scientology editing on their talk page at the time when Cirt was asked to step back from the topic area, and thought I'd seen you around some AfDs in the topic area. I was wrong about that, and apologise. (I'm not familiar with Ford Greene). --JN466 07:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight. You say your comment about my "past interests" being "duly noted" in Scientology topics is based on a talk page comment on Cirt's page months ago, and you "thought" I was at some AfD's? The August 2009 edit to David Miscavige is not a factor? It's nice to get an apology I suppose, but you were really throwing your weight around prior to me raising these issues here. What do you say to a one year topic ban for you on Scientology or any other 'new religion'? I think that would go a long way towards resolving community concerns about your numerous questionable edits and Off-wiki attacks on Cirt. Jusdafax 08:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This proposal would address a number of problems.   Will Beback  talk  10:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk about 'chilling effects.' If you folks are criticized, you certainly ensure that the critic gets hit on the nose. →StaniStani  12:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Jayen466, this thread is about you and your interactions with Cirt, and I want to stay focused on that. Could I ask you to comment on my proposal? Are you prepared to step away from edits and comments to new religion articles for a year? Also you have not commented on your Off-wiki activity at 'Wikipedia Review' which you need to apologize for and stop doing, nor answered my concerns regarding your "duly noted" comment about what you seemed to indicate was my deep involvement with Scientology articles, nor have you replied to my concerns regarding the curious way you appear to invite others to attack Cirt ("they are welcome") in prima facie violation of WP:TAGTEAM. To be blunt, you appear to be involved in WP:BATTLE and I think the community deserves a straight answer from you about these matters, since you have been brought to this board to answer editor concerns. Thanks. Jusdafax 19:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos in broadly similar terms

In broad terms, I agree with Jusdafax's comments above and think there are some rather significant concerns about Jayen's behaviour. Cirt's list of featured articles speak for themselves - it's always going to be that people who take on more controversial topics are a bit different to the norm and attract more opposition, but without them our encyclopaedia wouldn't be the project it is. There's a level of courage there which I admire - I don't lay any claim to it myself, as most topics I edit are on utterly uncontroversial subjects that have too few editors rather than too many disagreeing ones. However, opposition on the facts in a particular situation or set of related situations is one thing - and, I should add, a necessary thing, as noone is perfect! - but the sort of thing we see here spanning multiple unrelated topics over 3½ years suggests an unhealthy obsession which is best dealt with IMO by a topic or interaction ban. Any valid concerns can be easily dealt with by neutral editors, as is the case in most places. In my own dealings with Cirt (apart from our first, which is documented in a pulled RfC somewhere :P) I've found Cirt to be a productive, cooperative editor who engages in careful research on the topics covered and is willing to seek and listen to other/differing opinions on their writing. Chester may be right that ArbCom needs to look at this situation, but I believe that should be a final step taken only if the community proves unable to handle it. Orderinchaos 07:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the matter is resolved. I approached Cirt on their talk page, per DR policy, and Cirt at least acknowledged that featuring a political candidate on the main page immediately prior to an election is inappropriate. I will not take that matter further; if someone else wants to, they're welcome. --JN466 07:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"If someone else wants to, they are welcome?" "...welcome?" That sure sounds like code for "Somebody else bash Cirt for a while." I have looked into your edit history a bit as a result of your forcing me to look at my own at David Miscavige per my section above, and I don't see this matter as resolved at all. I renew my call for a topic ban for you, based on what appears to be a number of very troubling facts including off-wiki attacks on Cirt at Wikipedia Review, which you do not reply to here, and at the very least should apologize for and cease at once, and again, this bizarre invitation to others to "take the matter further" which is on the face of it is highly disingenuous, in my view. Jusdafax 08:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Supporting OrderInChaos's point, and some more thoughts

I think Jayen's comments and continual defense of his actions point to a problem here without considering the points that a) his interactions with Cirt are unhealthy for both of them in their relationships to the community and the further point made by others that b) he has an unhealthy long term obsession with interacting with Cirt in a negative light. Cirt, though unpolitic in how he approaches some situations and clearly wrong in others, has demonstrated by his withdrawal from major Scientology editing and by reacting actively to the concerns of other users shows a willingness to be flexable and an attempt to work with the community's consensus. Cirt and Jayen interacting simply has not been fruitful, and Cirt has acknowledged that he would be fine with having an interaction ban and/or topic ban related to Jayen. At this point, I think community health would be benefited by a reciprocal ban where these conversations could be addressed by neutral parties, and perhaps identified parties, before either editor is brought into contact with eachother. Simply put, too many people have invested emotional energy into these arguments which often prove unfruitful in developing the community or in content because they are often either a) incredibly retrospective (if you have noticed most of the proof above has been at least 5-6 months old) or b) incredibly unfounded such as can be understood in Drmies earlier comment about Santorum. It's not that Cirt is right in all of his actions, but rather, the method of discussion of them is becoming extremely unproductive and time consuming in unnecessary ways for multiple good content developers (Jayen and Cirt included), Sadads (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Suppressing dissent is certainly on the agenda here - anyone scrolling up this big wall of text would think the worst of Jayen466 - until they looked more closely. The arguments against him are circular and at times meaningless. 'Jayen's comments and continual defense of his actions point to a problem here...' Gosh, he defends himself when attacked! How awful. →StaniStani  12:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. One point that often gets missed is it's easier to scrutinise when one doesn't have to play into someone's misguided campaign in order to do so. I've seen this in other debates in pedia hotspots, where people don't feel they can criticise actions they disagree with by someone they largely agree with because of how that disagreement might be used politically. Orderinchaos 19:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

topic ban on Scientology related articles

• I support a complete topic ban on User Cirt from anything related to Scientology. The en Wikipedia project has been used as a anonymous mouthpiece for anti Scientology activism for far too long. As for a relating ban between Cirt and Jayen - the issues with Cirt's editing are well documented and welL known, Jayen is simply brave enough and intelligent enough to point those issues out and suggestions of a condition that would stop those well founded complaints within wiki policy would be to censor them when they clearly require vocalizing. I love this project and I hate to see it abused for the active promotion of personal positions and I am afraid User Cirt has become a master of that dark art. Off2riorob (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Can I point out that this discussion has had nothing to do with Scientology, and Cirt has not been actively adding any new content to Scientology other then old FAs which he has worked on. This has been a voluntary removal from the topic area. I don't see how you came to this conclusion/set of comments,Sadads (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost everything that user Cirt does here is one way or another related to anti Scientology, if its about a restaurant it is really about someones brother who is a friend of a Scientologist. If its about a politician it is in support of anti Scientology activist posts on anonymous that vocalize to support that politician etc. Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, can you provide diffs of recent editing on the subject which you object to? -- Cirt (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you want diffs for, you know exactly what you do here its indisputable. - Your continued development and expansion of this article Santorum (neologism) is part of the type of editing you continue with and imo is a shame on the project Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That does not have to do with the area of your proposed "topic ban on". Please provide recent diffs of objectionable editing within the topic, or retract your proposal. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Everything you do here is associated to your anti Scientology activism. Everything, that is what you do here , that is why you are here - to propagate anti Scientology content using the wikipedia platform at every opportunity - that is also what you do at WP:Commons. I support a complete edit restriction on anything to do with it, either specifically or tangentially. You will have a few supporters of people that also support anonymous and anti Scientology positions but in a way that is one of the worst aspects of your contributions here - other less experienced users see you getting away with it and some even look up to you when actually you are only using and demeaning the projects neutrality in support of your activism. Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. To slap this proposal in here without proper evidence and discussion is unfair to Cirt. →StaniStani  12:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Stanistani, I am happy to agree with on this point. And the accusation made above ("everything you do here") is painted with such a big brush that the metaphor is practically meaningless--I got to meet Cirt (if I remember correctly) through some activity related to one Bacon Cup or another. We both worked on Seduced by Bacon. I have Bacon: A Love Story, a book for which Cirt wrote the GA, on my shelf. Are we seriously going to believe that bacon is a Scientological issue? Should Cirt be blocked from editing bacon articles (or, God forbid, writing Tofu bacon) because everything [he does] here is associated with [his] anti Scientology activism? Come on. You are calling for a complete ban, in effect. I think it is immediately obvious that this accusation is unwarranted, and I think Off2riorob should take those words back: they constitute a serious personal attack and display an utter lack of good faith. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have made no attempt to follow Cirt's editing regarding Scientology, and so my comment does not have anything to do with it. However, like Drmies, I am familiar with Cirt's bacon-related editing, and I think I've interacted with him on some other topics (though I can't say from the top of my head what). The point is, to say that all of Cirt's editing is anti-Scientology is certainly hyperbole. LadyofShalott 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• oppose - this is an overreaction. Cirt has in the past pushed the envelope of the 5 pillars, but seems to have pulled back substantially lately. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Is anyone else struggling to see the relevance of this proposal to what is taking place? The locus here is an article about a neologism related to a right-wing American politician who, as far as I know, has no link with Scientology or anti-Scientology; the behaviour under discussion is not Cirt's, but Jayen's. Orderinchaos 19:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Drmies, LadyofShalott, Rocksanddirt and Orderinchaos, and suggest archiving this tangential proposal which has failed to gain traction. Jusdafax 19:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I read the whole thing

Seriously - when a change of a word from an odd use of "affect" to a proper use of "effect" (given above by Cirt as evidence) is given as an example of "hounding", I am a tad bemused. Jayen466 is imperfect, and so is Cirt. So are we all. Jayen466 has appearently used proper WP processes and procedures, and does not appear to be trying to make Cirt disappear. Is TheWebsiteWhichMustNotBeNamed important? I think not very. So I dismiss all that stuff entirely. The Scientology issue seems to be connected in some way - I suggest that both editors steer clear of all Scientology topics for a while as one way to defuse some of this. The deadline is not coming very fast. Lastly, will someone close this? There are clearly good editors with opinions on both sides, and no consensus for either side is likely this decade. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Months ago I had already severely curtailed my degree of editing within the topic of Scientology, removed hundreds of pages from my watchlist, and focused mainly on GAs and FAs. Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has continued to follow me to other unrelated topics. -- Cirt (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that true, Cirt? To the best of my recollection, our only points of contact since January have been one brief exchange with you and another editor on the Werner Erhard talk page, and my comments yesterday regarding the Santorum page. --JN466 14:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The behavior has gone on for over three years, Jayen. It needs to stop. I have already offered to a mutual restriction, and to strive to stay away from your editing. I hope that you will do the same going forwards. -- Cirt (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In short, my case is made. Collect (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Could some friendly admin please close this execrable pile of verbiage? →StaniStani  15:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Soylent Green is people

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.

This is not the venue for six degrees of Xenu. 28bytes (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Allow me to connect the dots between Scientology and santorum.

• On 5 May 2008, Dan Savage, who coined the term "santorum", wrote a blog entry discussing how he got Scientologists posing as booksellers kicked out of the Fremont flea market. I mistakenly thought this was posted in 2011. Corrected now.
• On 7 May 2011, Cirt returned from a long wiki-break.
• On 9 May, Cirt began editing the santorum article.
• On 10 May, Cirt creates Template:Dan Savage
• On 26 May, Cirt creates Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist and begins an expansion of Skipping Towards Gomorrah.

Much like the Daryl Wine Bar article, santorum is indirectly related to Scientology and a case can easily be made that this is what has motivated Cirt in these recent edits. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And an addendum: 27 May, Cirt creates The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: For the record, I was unaware of that blog entry until Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) posted it just now. I had intended to improve the article on Santorum (neologism) for months. These new articles are independently notable. -- Cirt (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Note: Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) got his chronology wrong. That blog post he linked is not from 6 May 2011 - it is from 5 May 2008 - three years ago!!! I have never seen that blog post before. -- Cirt (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Says May 5, 2008, actually. 28bytes (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Quite right, thank you, 28bytes. I request that Delicious carbuncle please redact this inappropriateness, and remove his mistake. -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I did get my dates wrong. Although the chronology is not as neat, it does establish the connection between Savage and Scientology. Cirt, for the record, were you aware of the incident that Savage refers to in his blog post? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • No, Delicious carbuncle, I was not. -- Cirt (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, your correction is still wrong. I returned from a wikibreak in 2011, not 2010. Literally three years after your spurious blog post link. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• So the assertion is that an article on a book about adoption and parenting (which has been widely covered in reliable sources), written by an unquestionably notable author/pundit/activist, constitutes an "anti-Scientology" article because, three years previous, that pundit made an anti-Scientology blog post? I'm dubious. I think a substantial fraction of the encyclopedia consists of pro-Scientology or anti-Scientology (or, often, both at the same time) articles by that measure. And I see nothing in the articles about Savage's books to support a risible claim that they are being used to coatrack an anti-Scientology POV. Why is this a meritable accusation? Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read this whole section and this is absolutely the craziest thing in it. So Dan Savage, a sex columnist who has generally nothing to do with Scientology, writes a blog post about them, and that prompts a Wikipedia editor to start contributing to Savage related articles three years later? I've seen more plausible theories from Birthers. Sit down and think about what you are proposing here, because you really should be embarrassed by this. Gamaliel (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am embarrassed to have missed the posting date on that original blog post, but it establishes the connection between Savage and Scientology. You and Serpent's Choice may find the idea that Cirt is creating articles about Savage's (admittedly quite notable) books as some kind of reward for Savage's attitude toward Scientology to be far-fetched, but one only needs to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant to see that similar activity has been recognized in the past. This is just more of the same. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I see neither a parallel nor relevance. The restaurant article wound up being deleted on notability grounds; ultimately, the coverage was run-of-the-mill (although it survived its first AFD). Savage's books are unquestionably notable. Even in this crazy AN/I section, I don't see any claims that these articles are being written improperly, or with any specific bias. And the connection you're implying is so tenuous that virtually any article could be considered equally related. Zacarias Moussaoui's prosecution was presided over by the same judge who had ruled against Scientology in RTC v. Lerma et al. (1995). If Cirt -- or any other editor -- improved the quality of our coverage of that prosecution (or any of Brinkema's other notable cases), are you claiming those would be anti-Scientology edits? Even if Cirt really is writing these articles because their author made an anti-Scientology comment 3 years ago ... so what? It's neither possible nor appropriate to pass judgment on the reasons why editors submit the content they do, only on the neutrality and value of the content submitted. I'm struggling to understand this argument as anything other than disparagement. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Savage's books are unquestionably notable. I have made no suggestion that they are otherwise. Is there anything wrong with Cirt or any other editor creating articles on Savage's books? Not at all. But there is something else at work here that will be missed if one looks only at superficial questions like "Did this break any rules?". Much as Cirt larded Knight and Day (a Tom Cruise film) with negative reviews (see this version), they have done the opposite in the articles on Savage's books. Each of those contains numerous positive quotes that could easily become blurbs on the book jackets. Cirt made the movie article a hit piece by including a ridiculous number of cherry-picked quotes from reviews. They have made the book articles into nothing more than adverts. No rules have been broken in the process.

I am not claiming that every edit made by Cirt is related to Scientology, but I will claim that the vast majority of content edits made by Cirt are directly or indirectly related to Scientology. I have raised a number of issues on the BLP noticeboard about Scientology-related articles. In many of those cases, the BLP violations were originally inserted by Cirt. I have previously linked to Cirt's anti-Scientology stories on Wikinews. There is currently a discussion happening on Jimbo's talk page about a file Cirt uploaded to Commons. Take a look at the Free-use Scientology-related video project on Wikiversity. This is an example of project-wide advocacy of a particular viewpoint. Even if there is nothing wrong with a single edit or a single article, the totality of Cirt's activities project-wide should make their bias abundantly clear. Jayen466 and I have offered diffs and links to make our case. If the community choses to react by ignoring the issue because it is unpleasant or calls into question our policies, that is up to them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I last edited Knight and Day half a year ago. I removed hundreds of pages relating to the topic of Scientology from my watchlist months ago. My creating new articles relating to notable books by Dan Savage has nothing to do with Scientology. -- Cirt (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

So because the coiner a specific neologism happened to make a blog entry that mentioned Scientology at one point that's a connection? This sounds like a fun game! May I play too? Let's try showing that my edits are all connected to scientology. Let's see, I recently made an edit to Big O notation, which is used in a lot of theorems proved by Paul Erdős, and people care about the Erdős number and the Erdős–Bacon number, which connects to Kevin Bacon who is in Hollywood and lots of actors are scientologists. Hmm, what other recent edits have I made? Well, there's an edit to Saint Ange which is a movie, so that's obviously connected. Wee, this is fun! JoshuaZ (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well, I am fairly sure that Savage has mentioned Scientology more than once [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] etc...

Discussion about Scientology is so endemic in popular culture that one can link Sesame Street, the Iraq War and the consumption of non-bovine cheese to it without any serious difficulty. This does not mean they are Scientology-linked topics or that editing in them is somehow related to Scientology. Most of the topics I've been asked for an opinion on by Cirt in recent years are either political or local, and entirely unrelated to CoS topics. Orderinchaos 19:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

No consensus for administrative action. Further complaints, if any, should be pursued via the dispute resolution process.Chester Markel (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

---

What administrative action is sought here?

What exactly is the point of this discussion and what administrative action is being sought here? The original post includes an accusation that User:Jayen466 is "hounding" User:Cirt. "Hounding," on Wikipedia has a specific meaning as part of the policy on harassment. Here's a very pertinent part of the language of that policy:

• The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

While I see no convincing evidence that Jayen is excessively following Cirt around, let's pretend he is. It only becomes hounding if he is doing so "for no overriding reason," and it only becomes a clearly "serious matter" if it is accompanied by "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior." I don't see any evidence of the latter form of behavior in the presentation here. Is Jayen being tendentious, attacking Cirt or otherwise being disruptive? Also, I believe that the very post on Cirt's talk page that resulted in this AN/I is itself an obvious example of the "overriding reason" why Jayen has taken notice of several different, recent subjects that Cirt has edited. Some here may not agree that this is a sufficient reason, but I would assume that Jayen does think so. In short, WP:HOUNDING seems like a pretty big stretch, and I highly doubt either the community or any administrator is going to act on that accusation.

So where does that leave us? I suggest that if Cirt and Jayen respectively feel that the other party is exhibiting a pattern of behavior that is problematic that they both consider next steps in the dispute resolution process. Is it time for two RFC/U's?Griswaldo (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question in your topic title (assuming it wasn't rhetorical), I gathered that an interaction ban was being sought. In which case, ANI is one of the proper venues to seek community support for a ban. Obviously that failed, the suggestion of RFC/U seems appropriate. -- Atama頭 21:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I also had some relevant questions for Jayen466 that he ignored, or perhaps did not see. I think prior to any next stage(s) that it would be helpful to get a bit more information from the subject of the thread, and I think it was closed a bit quickly.Jusdafax 21:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is a consensus that parallel RfC/Us are the way forward here, and two qualifying certifiers can be found on each side, then I am open to that. While I thought that Cirt and I had more or less agreed above that there was no need for this, Cirt still seems to feel that we haven't reached an understanding. As I mentioned above, the reason I contacted Cirt on their talk page yesterday was indeed to find out whether an RfC/U was necessary, or whether we could come to some sort of understanding and fruitful exchange about my concerns. So if there are still outstanding issues, perhaps RfC/Us are the way forward.

As for the counterclaim of hounding advanced by Cirt and others here, in my view two or three civil article talk page discussions over a space of four or five months do not amount to a good case that I have unduly focused on editing or influencing articles created by Cirt. That frequency of interaction seems within expected parameters in a project like this. --JN466 21:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jusdafax. I disagree. The thread was going nowhere. The original post was vaguely asking for help with their interactions because there was a perception of hounding. I see no hounding (per my comment above). What followed was a mishmash of proposals from two sides of the issue variously against Jayen and Cirt. None of these were going to gain any consensus. You may pose unanswered questions to Jayen on his talk page. You may also comment further on his behavior at RFC/U if you or someone else starts one. For my money this was a great close. My only complaint is that RD didn't also scoop my comment up into the archived discussion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the failure to scoop was initially accidental, but then I decided the accident was fortuitous, as a useful prompt for discussion on ways forward after the closure. Rd232 ^talk 23:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, one issue that may be relevant here is that you respond to threads on Wikipedia Review (about Cirt and others) by arriving at articles that person is editing, even when the threads contain what could be seen as harassment of editors. It creates a non-level playing field, where you may edit freely, but the target of the thread is attacked in public offwiki if s/he opposes you.

I accept that this is unintentional on your part. A large problem in these cases is that individual actors don't factor in the overall effect on the target—especially the emotional effect—of the group action. It's a mistake we all make. If you could bear it in mind going forward, it would help to avoid the perception that anyone is being targeted.

I do agree with you about the santorum article, but there's strong consensus that it should exist, so it's hard to see what can be done about it now. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I do understand that it must be unpleasant to see oneself criticised by a group on an external forum. I would undertake to reduce my involvement there, and be more mindful of the effect such discussions might have on an editor who has no way to reply at that forum. If my comments there have caused Cirt, you or anyone else offence, then I apologise. --JN466 22:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, above you write, in regard to Cirt's editing, "As far as I am concerned, the matter is resolved." Yet I also see that you are soliciting support for an RFC/U against Cirt.[19] Are there unresolved issues? Are a pair of RFC/Us the best next step in dispute resolution?   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Cirt's most recent comments on their talk page do not make me feel that the matter is resolved, or that my points have in good faith been taken on board. --JN466 22:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec; to Jayen) Thank you for that, and for the apology.

I want to make clear that it's not criticism that's the issue, it's attacks, some of them very personal, sexist, and protracted, going on in some instances for years (I'm not referring to you here, I should stress). Every editor who responds to those threads sees himself only as an individual actor, whereas he is, of course, part of the whole, and it's the whole the target sees and feels.

My advice, for what it's worth, is not to open an RfC on Cirt at this time, because that just looks like more of the same. Wait six months to allow the heat to drain from the situation, then do it if the issues have continued. In the meantime, do your best to avoid Cirt, and I hope Cirt will take on board any criticism, including the perception that he edits a little too much to further what might be personal interests. We all do this (no one wants to write about things that bore them), but it's important not to let it cross into open advocacy. If both of you would make efforts in those directions, the issue might resolve itself. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'll take it under advisement and sleep over it. --JN466 22:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you, SlimVirgin, for the wise words. I will take your advice and try to make efforts to avoid editing in the manner you describe. I hope that Jayen will take your advice as well, and we can all try to back down from all the heat that has been generated recently about this. Yes, I do happen to feel disturbed and upset by Jayen's campaign to follow me around Wikipedia for three years and foment opposition to me both on and offsite. But I also do recognize that legitimate concerns have been raised, and I will strive to adjust my behavior accordingly. I will continue to listen to others, to solicit feedback about new-article-creation, and work on improving myself. My concern about being wikihounded for three years, and my strong desire to respond to good faith criticisms made about me on-Wikipedia — are not mutually exclusive. Though I wish for the wikihounding to stop, I still will strive to respond to the criticism. -- Cirt (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self promotion at Houston mayoral election, 2011

This user keeps making really bad edits in Houston mayoral election, 2011 and putting himself in the running [[20]]. After looking up the information, he only has [[21]] as a website stating that he's running with no additional notices in the media. After reverting his edits several times, I just had to look for some way to resolve this issue. --Hourick (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

user has been notified of this discussion. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Will this do? "Two candidates have declared against her. Republican Fernando Herrera, a firefighter ... The other announced challenger is Kevin Simms".[22] Fences&Windows 21:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rick, the Houston Chronicle citation looks good to me. No mention of him being a doctor, though. I put this article in my watch list. Liberal Classic (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've just blocked Drkevins (talk · contribs) for 31 hours. He was advised repeatedly to bring his concerns to the talk page but kept making the same edit again and again—adding information not present in the following source and breaking an interwiki link. I also invited him to join the discussion at the article's talk page, but he refused to. The block should both prevent further disruption of the article and bring him to the discussion table on his user talk page, since that's the only place he can edit currently. —C.Fred (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as a mater of interest, could this be someone trying to dis-credit the guy, might it be worth considering a username block pending confirmation this is who it looks like ? Mtking (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to raise the username issue at his user talk page. I don't expect a response from him, though you're right, the username concerns could be enough to escalate the block to indefinite. —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't spot the chron.com article until I examined what kind of damage he had done. The edits he had done were highly suspicious, and figured he just needed to get familiar with the process IF he was legit. Either way, I'm glad that it was resolved. --Hourick (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yuufa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

removed the "resolved" tag - we appear to have a duck. Active Banana (^bananaphone 10:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks that way, block this new account, change the block on the first account and make the page semi-protected for 2 weeks, with a bit of luck the guy will loose interest. Mtking (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess you all are way ahead of me. I opened a sockpuppet case here:[23]. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I started to say that there's a mitigating circumstance: another editor challenged whether he was Simms and effectively questioned the appropriateness of his username.[24] If he'd used the new account to discuss the situation, I'd be fine. Since he used the new account to go right back down the path of edit warring, I endorse the indef block on the new account. —C.Fred (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:RabidZionist

RabidZionist (talk · contribs) is the newly created account of an editor who formerly edit-warred as 149.171.184.28 (talk · contribs), 149.171.185.6 (talk · contribs), 149.171.184.212 (talk · contribs), 149.171.184.98 (talk · contribs), 149.171.184. (talk · contribs), 149.171.184.52 (talk · contribs), and 149.171.184.175 (talk · contribs). He has persistently been adding Category:Racism to various article about Jews or Jewish movements, while removing (among other things) Category:Holocaust denial from Michael A. Hoffman II. When the articles in question were finally semi-protected, he chose the name "RabidZionist" (though he's obviously not a Zionist). His editing seems agenda-driven and disruptive, as does his choice of username, which likely also violates our username policy. I've brought the issue here for discussion and administrative action. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Block on username alone, I say. → ROUX ₪ 01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've soft-blocked the account solely for the username, which is clealry provocative and probably offensive. I've also hard-blocked the small range from which all those IPs come for two weeks. Would appreciate it if a CU could see to any good-faith editors on that range, though it's quite small. {{checkuser needed}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I saw that guy on the Lubavitcher dude's article, on about racism towards goyim and all. He was adding it as IPs then? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Milowent

Resolved

as the original complainant has decided to descend to incivility.

I have been having a problem with another editor, Milowent.

In my very first interaction with the user, he accused me of being a WP:SOCK. His entire basis was that I agreed with the Nominator [25]. I sent him a message on his talk page, objecting to the unfounded accusation [26]. His reasoning was that he felt I wasn't being civil. How that related to my being a sock, I don't quite understand. His next attempt was more subtle, but essentially the same thing, citing, as his reasoning, that I pointed to Policies [27]. I tried to explain on his talk page that I'm just the kind of person who puts effort into being informed and thorough [28]. When I brought the civility and accusation problems to Wikiquette, he responded with another accusation, while saying he would drop it [29]. Some time went by without him making another accusation, until yesterday, when he started making insinuations again, [30] [31].

Besides the incivility and outright insults, which are relatively minor, I am pretty much at my wit's end, with him implicitly and explicitly calling my a sock, and I have no idea how to get him to just drop it.

Homo Logica (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

While I would agree that Milowent has been very vigorous (perhaps overly so?) in his/her responses to you, it seems to me that you have invited vigorous responses by the tenacity of your arguments at the AfD in question. In my experience AfD !votes are best made and stated in a single argument, rather than beginning a lengthy discussion and responding to every subsequent post. I don't think there's anything actionable by an admin here on either side, but I would caution both of you to avoid one another for a while. The AfD is now closed so there's no need to drag the conflict out further. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My objection isn't to his general responses to me. It's the fact that he is repeatedly calling me a sock with no basis, and not filing a formal complaint (because he knows it isn't true).

Homo Logica (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there's little to be done here. Milowent's questions about whether or not you are a truly new and independent account holder, or have edited previously under another name, are not the first time anyone has been asked such questions. They fell short of a formal accusation of socking, in my opinion. You have said (if I read it correctly) that you are not the same person who posted previously in the AfD and for now, that must be that. Milowent and the rest of us must either AGF or file a report. I suggest you leave this for now Homo Logica because trying to get Milowent to formally withdraw something s/he only ever raised informally is going to be difficult. I assume that Milowent is watching this discussion and therefore will ask Milowent here not to raise the issue of previous accounts again unless any evidence for this appears. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: editor is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, already raised issue at WQA. Gerardw (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And since he has started making the accusation again, I escalated the issue. Since I wasn't sure what to do, I did this on advice from other users. I did not hide the fact that I filed an objection at WQA, and I specifically mentioned it. Homo Logica (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have little wiki-love for ol Milo, but you do appear to have a pretty adept hand at citing WP policy and guideline pages in the course of discussions with him. Hard to believe that a "new" user has become so familiar with wikipedia-space that they rattle off obscurities i.e. WP:VALINFO, WP:ESSAYDEL, WP:MUSTBESOURCES, with ease. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to back me up, Tarc, despite us being arch-enemies of comic book proportions.:-)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Response from the Accused Editor Milowent: I have no idea why HL is continuing to pursue this silliness. At Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Milowent, I said "I will refrain from any further discussion regarding HL's comments on that AfD." I did. What he calls my continuation is an exchange on his talkpage were I noted that User:GlasgowGuyScotland, a new account who showed up on the same AfD and posted on HL's page complaining that I was a "dedicated asshole"[32] and on my talk page seeking "help" to decide whether I was a "cunt, a prick, or a motherfucking asshole",[33], had been blocked as a sock (though HL suggested twice in our exchange that GGS was a "new user", which was ridiculously laughable from my perspective). (The nominator in that AfD was also blocked as a sock! A very peculiar AfD. The article is about pig slaughter, not Israel or pornography or Pippa Middleton or something where you expect drama like this.) I see that HL took this as a new accusation that I thought he was a sock, which I really did not intend. I was continuing to marvel at the bizarre nature of that AfD. But looking back at it, I can see why he may have thought otherwise. Therefore, I hereby pledge that I, Milowent, shall never make any accusation that Homo Logica is a sock or ever edited under any other name other than Homo Logica from the beginning of time. I will accept without further comment that Homo Logica is extremely familiar with Wikipedia policies (e.g., User_talk:Paulmcdonald#Votestacking) despite his short tenure on the project, i.e., I will not comment anymore of HL's mastery of wikipedia bureaucracy. In the meantime, I will use this opportunity to invite all editors to help source or otherwise process the last 5,000 unreferenced BLPs on the project at Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue. Its a fun project, even more fun that ANI. Cheers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Invitation accepted. Nice plug! One down, 5044 to go. Unfortunately I had to send it to AfD. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me check, to be certain that I understand the concern. Before I went into a discussion on deleting an article, I reviewed whatever policies I could find that were relevant, before forming a decision, and responding. I'm literally being attacked for actually being informed. Honestly, you people wonder why there is a drop in new editors? It has to do with this. Right here. This is just insanity. I think I'm done with Wikipedia. You guys attack people if they don't know policies. You attack them if they do. And if somebody doesn't follow policies, it's too much to ask that people within the community ask them to stop. I haven't, at any point, asked for any official rebuke. It's actually pretty pretty consistent. Somebody, talk to him, and ask him to stop. The fact that I'm getting attacked for that... that's the reason I'm leaving, and that's the reason that others leave. A collective, community-wide apathy for some of the core principles WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. If it doesn't get to the point of earning them a block, or a ban, then it isn't worth asking them to stop, and heaven forbid somebody actually reads the policies.

Homo Logica (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• HL, I said I would stop and I will. Sorry to see you have quit, it seems quite rash for you to do so. The irony is that I have stopped newby editors from quitting wikipedia many times when their contributions were unfairly attacked, and I would for you as well if you had created any articles. Godspeed, HL.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think you have understood the concern so thanks for checking! If you are a newcomer to WP you may not have realised that there is occasionally a bit of a problem with well established editors making second accounts in order to support themselves from an apparently independent source in arguments. Either that, or to establish a new identity without taint from an old one. A sign of this is often that these 'new' editors begin with much more apparent knowledge of WP's procedures and software. Unfortunately this does mean that diligent editors who are quick to learn, but genuinely new to WP, can get looked at askance. I'm sorry if you've been caught up in this collateral damage but personally I'm quite happy to accept your reassurance that you have not, in fact, edited here under any other name. Milowent has agreed, above, not to question your antecedents any further either and as far as I can see has not posted anything recently doing so. Nor has s/he ever made what I'd regard as a personal attack - though arguments at AfD can get heated sometimes and you may have jumped unknowing into a bear pit! If it feels too harsh an environment, stay away from AfD until you get a better feel of how WP works, edit some articles and please don't regard this process as having been an attack on you. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

personal attack: Pangurban1

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.

Pangurban1 has been warned. 28bytes (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Pangurban1 (talk · contribs) New, SPA account. Attacking other editor by mispelling name into synonym for feces and implying mental defect or learning disorder [[34]]. Previously made similar comment implying incompetence [[35]], was told comment inappropriate [[36]] (Note: Based on the escalating pattern of disruption, I didn't feel WQA would be an effective forum for resolution)Gerardw (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Those comments aren't very friendly, and a similar one was directed at Jasper Deng (saying "Dung" was an obvious insult, of course). But the latter placed an NPA-4im warning on Pangurban1's talk page, and that should be it for now. If they proceed to insult other editors, they'll probably be blocked for a short while, but until they do, given that they've received a final warning, there is no administrative action called for. Gerard, those templates and warnings are there for a reason--to give the editor the opportunity to make the decision to act appropriately. Dragging them off to ANI disrupts that a bit. Patience is a virtue.

  I propose we close this--even if further insults occur, the regular AIV process will suffice. Drmies (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, this editor is canvassing other editors to come support his point of view, after already being told not to do it. In the content dispute, Gerardw and I have been opposing this editor's insertion of several sentences that violate WP:PEACOCK, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. Pangurban1 turned to these personal attacks after I told him/her about these policies which he/she claims he/she isn't violating.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, thought it isn't a very egregious call for canvassing, in my opinion--I presume not everyone in the school would automatically agree with Pangurban, though there is a likelihood there. But still I propose that no action is necessary at this point, not yet. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Now this requires some sort of action.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, stop arguing and edit-warring with the guy on his talk page. 28bytes (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My comments weren't personal attacks (which he/she marked as such) and I wasn't edit warring - this was the first revert on that page. What concerns me is that in a content dispute, I don't seem to be able to get this user to understand policies. I understand the content of the section in question well, and agree with Gerardw's assertion about the policies. See Talk:Los Angeles Unified School District.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This was not an appropriate use of rollback. Please don't do that again. Replacing their comment "Your unsolicited advice is not needed. Thank you" with a {{RPA}} template was not appropriate either. You've already given that editor your 2¢, now's the time to withdraw from their talk page since they've asked you to. If they do anything blockworthy, Drmies or another admin will block them. 28bytes (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, both of us are wrong. He wasn't supposed to mark my comments as personal attacks. "Your unsolicited advice is not needed" was taken as a personal attack because the one about community college and things was one. I don't see if they asked me to withdraw from their talk.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Your unsolicited advice is not needed. Thank you" is an implicit request for you to stop giving them advice on their talk page. But you are correct that both you and Pangurban1 should not be replacing each other's comments with {{RPA}} when they're not attacks. Anyway, I agree with Drmies that this thread should be closed, so I'm going to do so. You can find me on my talk page if you want to discuss it further. 28bytes (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:POINTy comments on FfD

I believe Dekkappai (talk · contribs) is on for some pointy comments at FfDs. Also, I've recently received a dubious star-award from him. If some adming could look at hid vc.--Damiens.rf 05:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Drop it Damiens. With your track record and... deft and diplomatic communications skills... more than a few people who come across you have ruffled feathers. Heck, more than a few people would be tempted to support a topic ban from Files for Deletion for you, if such a motion were ever to come up. Now don't get me wrong, I defended you the last time you were the focus of a thread on this page, but if you're going to be a difficult to work with person, you can't realistically expect sunshine and flowers from everyone you come across. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with that as well. However, someone should still drop a note (dare I say warning?) on Dekkappai (talk · contribs) talk page. Not that we give the person on the other end of the username any other recourse really, but regardless we should still discourage such behavior.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean like this note? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Chastising Comment Damines, after bringing a person to ANI for being dickish to you, turning around within 24 hours and nominating several of their uploads for deletion... is incredibly dickish. If you're wondering why people treat you poorly, there's your answer. (This is not to say that bad images should not be deleted, but to say that waiting a few weeks or asking someone else to do it if they agree with your assessment would both be alternatives that are less likely to piss people off.) Sven Manguard Wha? 19:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• "If some adming could look at hid vc". In English? Fences&Windows 21:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Right. Because that comment made the situation much better. Raise your hand if you didn't understand that to say "If some admin could look at it". Any hands? Didn't think so. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually I couldn't figure it out either. Was going to ask but saw F&W already did -- ۩ Mask 14:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Dekkappai stomped off in a huff months ago [37] and periodically returns solely to snark, or worse, at users he dislikes. Fundamentally, he rejects WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:BLP; he's still upset about changes to WP:NFCC; and he targets editors who try to enforce these policies for various forms of abuse. Note this ANI discussion about two months ago [38] and his reaction to being blocked for a flargantly inappropriate edit summary [39] [40]. Comments like this one (which is, admittedly, rather more amusing than his norm) [41] show he lack of current interest in making constructive contributions. Comments like this one [42] are in part intended to reinflame old disputes (in this case, I'm the indirect target; Dekkappai and I had a rather nasty argument on the otherwise undisputed question of a whether a newspaper article which uses a Wikipedia page as its source for information can be used as a valid reference for that claim on that WP page). His edits since late last year have been almost entirely intended as disruptive, and he's trying to provoke a block or other editing sanctions to "prove" his WP:POINTs about Wikipedia. Whether it's prudent to give him what he's asking for is an open question. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  Hullaballoo's continued fixation with me is flattering, even if his recollections of our past encounters are increasingly inacurrate and self-aggrandizing. In fact the past clash over the newspaper source to which he refers, was due to his totally unsupported assertion that the LA Times had based an article on a Wikipedia article. This is water under the bridge, as I now recognize that newspapers are not reliable when they print something inappropriate for inclusion at Wikipedia. This was in fact a reference to: Wikipedia:OTTO, and Jimbo Wales approval of that essay. It had nothing to do with Hullaballoo that I am aware of... unless he is in fact a sock of Jimbo Wales?... Dekkappai (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Low-key vandalism campaign from xkcd readers, or coincidence?

On Typesetting I've reverted the wikilink to the disam page back to the specific link text, but there seems to be something of a history with just this one word in the article. One contributor announced the start of a "stickfight" while another made reference to the stick man comic xkcd. There's a discussion about Wikipedia linking and edit wars on on the comic's chat pages here, where they claim to have started an edit war on Property (philosophy). On the other hand, "plain English words" shouldn't be linked and I may just be reading too much into it: is this a low-key vandalism campaign, or just a valid application of WP policy unexplained in the page history? Some guidance welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Further research: Initiating WP edit wars is a tactic used by xkcd game-players to influence the outcome of an article-linking game they play. [43]. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I asked User:Seddon to semi-protect xkcd the other day due to repeated attempts to change the first link to point straight to philosophy. Give the xkcders a week or so and they'll get bored and move on. So, yeah, low-key vandalism campaign from xkcd readers seems a fairly likely explanation. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I say we give each one a {{uw-3rr}}, and if they persist, start with a 12h block and go from there. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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

After [44] and then [45] Terra Novus (talk · contribs) was topic banned "from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed". During the discussion at the first link he was asked by an editor "can you stick around and limit yourself to non-controversial articles (nothing remotely related to politics, religion, climate change and environment, etc.) and adhere to the suggestions others have made above re use of talk pages, etc.?". His reply was " I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area.".

Now that editor has posted to my talk page saying that this promise has been breeched. See [46] for his discussion with Terra Novus. It's clear although he may not have broken his topic ban he is still editing problematically: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical liberalism (political parties) which is an article he created which is related to politics (obviously) and he is also editing articles on religion, eg Sabellianism. Ohiostandard, the editor who asked him to stick around but avoid certain subjects, has brought this up on my talk page - he is also concerned with the sources used, saying he "looked at the Sabellianism edits in some detail, and saw some problematic cites. One was to this guy's blog for this post/blog-article. Another was to this "article" on its author's own site. The site-owner has evidently started his own church. I see that the user extensively edited the Trinity article a while back also. I haven't investigated that one but I'd guess that the tendency would be to move it in a direction friendlier to Seventh Day Adventist doctrine, and that it might be a worthwhile project for someone to check the cites used to support the changes." I've reviewed Ohiostandard's comments and agree that there is a continuing problem. I'd like to see the topic ban formally revised to include those subjects he was asked to stay away from (including Economics, see his contribution list). Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ban proposals (extended topic ban or community ban)

Extended topic ban

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

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

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

Site ban

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

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

0RR restriction

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

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

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

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

Mentorship

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

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

Questionable behavior

Resolved

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

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

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

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

concerted web campaign versus UCSD professor

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

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

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

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

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

• Talk:UCSD Kubiak Lab Rules Incident

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

In conjunction with this, there is a web campaign suggesting a letter writing crusade [47] and suggesting people visit various wikipedia pages visit wikipedia. There a large number of recently created single use accounts. Edit summaries suggest that the user involved believe they are justified in their edits because they are fighting for Chinese rights. (I am not an admin and cannot give difs to deleted pages.

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

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

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

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

Be aware that there are now personal attacks from apparently recruited IP users appearing on user talk pages regarding this: [48] [49]

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

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

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

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

• The man is unquestionably notable by WP:PROF and must have an article-- he holds the Harold C. Urey Chair in Chemistry as UCSD, one of the major US research universities. The citation counts for his papers in G scholar range into the thousands: 1450, 660, 452, 272. The only problem is not over-emphasising this extremely minor difficulty. It would be possible to suppress it via BLP, but as an alternative, we could simply link to the page on his own site, [50] where he gives his apology. As he wrote it himself, it can't be seen as an attack page. I shall write the article tomorrow. I think it should be protected for a while, but I do not want to protect something I write myself. I consider Stwalkerster's action deleting as CSD A7 a page that contained merely "Clifford Kubiak is a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at University of California,San Diego" is an egregious error, I suppose trouting is in order, though I am bothered enough by it to consider asking for desysop if there is no apology forthcoming. . If we delete a BLP, when an article contain mainly scandal, that's not just justifiable, but laudable, and necessary, but it is not justifiable to delete an article with this not mere claim, but easily sourced demonstration of significance. I'm not sure whether it was done in recognition of the BLP problems in other versions. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"you can copy and paste"

"who still does not help us"

"you can also copy and paste"

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

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

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

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

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

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

so if it is reported by other media, make it more important? Here it is.[51]. Why wiki users have to decide something unless media did something, don't we have a judgment of right or wrong ourselves?--Yeahsoo (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

See also these edits [52] to Chinaman and this block [53] of Chinaman (term). μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Protection request

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

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

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

User:Tower4Sitz

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

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

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

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

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

• Tower4Sitz is a sock of banned editor ItsLassieTime - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. This editor has a long history of serial copyvio and plagiarism problems. Per WP:BAN I reverted their edits at Jack and the Beanstalk, which has been reverted back. I'd prefer an admin take care of this given the comment above and the comments on my talk page this evening, [54], [55]. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It's rather ironic for a female dog to be calling anyone else a "b*tch". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • FYI, I just blocked User:NewHouse4533 who sure looks like another ItsLassieTime sock. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I was hoping that would be my first, but you beat me even to reverting it. Thanks for the protection, BTW. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Care to try for Protobaltoslav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
          • No I think that person happens to have been caught up in the maelstrom and is genuinely trying to work on the page. Anyway, thanks to everyone. Given the behavior exhibited by ItsLassieTime, I'd like to suggest that all the articles they've worked on be stubbified. Checking and scrubbing the pages is much too time-consuming and they become aggressive when their edits are reverted. I don't know how persistent copyvio vandals are dealt with and don't know if this is the venue, but it's a discussion that needs to be had somewhere. My request for help on the CCI talkpage has been ignored, and frankly with a new article just nominated to FAC yesterday, I haven't the time to deal with this. Also, would appreciate if someone semiprotects my talkpage since this person obviously won't leave me alone, [56]. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Here's the list:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks: you might add my page to that watchlist as well. [57] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Jonathan Drubner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat - Bob Newton (footballer)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. A. Hayek POV pushing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Controversy" involving terrorists

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat - Bob Newton (footballer)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. A. Hayek POV pushing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Controversy" involving terrorists

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

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

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

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

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

User:Sarah777 Unblock request on her talk page

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• What if any are the conditions of her unblock? they need to be clearly laid out here before users can comment - personally imo her presence in any English, Northern Ireland, Great Britain or United kingdom associated article only adds to the battlefield mentality and she should be edit restricted from any of those articles. note' - Irrespective of this discussion and any additional conditions imposed here. Sarah is already indefinitely banned from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, including all its sub pages and talk pages, for this [58] (and surrounding sequence of edits), and from British Isles and its talk page for this [59][60], which was pure POV trolling and baiting. Additionally, for the persistent pattern of battleground rhetorics and hate speech displayed in edits like this - and blocked for one month[ from Template:British English for one month. diff. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Although the unblock request contains exactly the sort of attitude (albeit toned down) that got her blocked... topic ban & John as a mentor get the thumbs up from me. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the conditions - topic ban should be Anything relating to Anglo-Irish relations and the naming dispute of the British Isles broadly constructed, and specificity the articles (and one template) British Isles naming dispute, British Isles, Template:British Isles, United Kingdom, Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Great Britain and John as a mentor. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock but also agree that the conditions must specifically include the current indefinite bans as well as the specific areas mentioned by off2riorob (even if they overlap). Without that I don't agree to the unblock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Not opposed to unblock as long as the topic bans are strictly enforced. (I'm not saying "support" because I'm unwilling to go that far, but this may be taken as a non-objecting opinion.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• As far as the fist unblock request goes, the backhanded attack on HJM shows she still doesn't get it. The broad brush attack on the 'the English' shows she still doesn't get it. Her personal/political prejudices are irrelevant, nobody here is interested in them and nobody has to be subjected to them. It's not her playground frankly. She needs to state clearly and without ambiguity that she accepts as a truism that on Wikipedia, having a particular nationality does not mean you are incapable of making neutral admin actions, or of writing neutrally about any topic. This has been her problem forever frankly - a complete misunderstanding of the whole concept of 'writing from the NPOV'. Her beliefs would disqualify even Jimbo from contributing to an Irish article (he once said that if he hadn't been born American he would have liked to have been British). Also, on the whole issue of a topic ban - check, and double check, the proposed wording. Her suggestion of "anything that comes under the Troubles" is completely insufficient - she is the person who once even turned the issue of how we disambiguate Irish and British road articles into an alleged part of the anti-Irish Wikipedia conspiracy, flinging out all the usual attacks and smears. I suggest any restrictions be focused on simply the issues of undesirable behaviour, not just banning her from certain topic areas (although that also will clearly be necessary for several basic article sets). As she notes though, she doesn't tend to edit much outside of Irish geography, so a 'broadly contrued' topic ban on Irish topics would simply be a complete ban from Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I would have supported an unblock under strict conditions (topic banned from everything to do with Britain, Ireland, British Isles, British Empire widely construed) but I cannot support unblocking a user whose own unblock request should've resulted in her talk page access being revoked. User:Sarah777 was blocked and topic banned from anti-British remarks. Her block was extended indefinitely because she made further personalized anti-British remarks. And now her original unblock request[61] repeats the same behaviour. Sarah777 has had years to learn how to communicate civilly and appropriately, and I see no benefit to community in unblocking Sarah777 until she recognizes that behaviour as unacceptable herself--Cailil ^talk 21:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I think she has done, or else I would not have supported the conditional unblock (ie a return to the status quo before HJMitchell's inflammatory block). I also think it's a little disingenuous of you (or did you genuinely not notice?) to talk about Sarah's original unblock request with the adjective "now" when it was made at 01:38, 21 May 2011, your post was made at 21:02, 21 May 2011, and yet at 15:59 Sarah had responded to my request to refactor her unblock request. So, let me get it straight. You are opposing unblock because you didn't like a post that she has already refactored, thus implicitly recognizing that it was inappropriate, right? I would disagree with this, as blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. If you feel that she deserves punishment nonetheless, perhaps this will be assuaged by her submitting to a month block, indefinite topic ban and mentorship? --John (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • We are beyond the stage of implicit acknowledgement of her past failings and future obligations. She needs to be explicit on both. Even refactored, her current request leaves a lot to be desired in that regard, aswell as in the specifics like the boundaries of this topic ban which she seems to think would only be "anything that comes under the Troubles". As I said above, this leaves questions like for example does this prevent a recurrance of her past misbehaviour in completely tangential areas such as road article naming? The last thing we need is a situation where she starts making some edits in an area she sees as completely uncontroversial and nothing to do with her definition of the Troubles (and thus, not pausing to clear it with you as the proposed mentor), and someone else reports her. The ensuing 50 pages of wikilawyering and accusation/counter-accusation is the exact kind of Sarah777 centric nationalist drama we do not need frankly, and which is what HJM was trying to put a full stop on due to her past record showing that no, she's not going to change. He's not daft, he knows he cannot impose 'infinite' blocks, but he also deserves the basic respect of having his concerns properly, and crucially explicitly, addressed, before anyone else unblocks her. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • John don't mis-understand me, I am not outright 'opposing' but I cannot support an unblock request from Sarah777 that she needed to be told should be refactored. She has had 4 years to get the point about incivility in general and anti-British remarks specifically. Maybe I'm being a bit of a wonk here but in my view under the Fameine RfAr ruling on Sarah777's conduct her talk page access should have been revoked and the request declined because of that. But I'm not going to labour the point - I'm certain she will be been unblocked conditionally here, but I wont support requests from Sarah777 that are anything less than explicit (from their very first posting) in evidencing that she's 'got it'--Cailil ^talk 15:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

Alternative proposal for Sarah777

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

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

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

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

Comments (alternative proposal for Sarah777)

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

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

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

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

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

Community context

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

For those reasons, I propose the following for Sarah:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I propose the following community sanction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who will bell the cat?

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

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

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

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

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

Less punitive but more to-the-point proposal

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

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

The proposal:

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

So Sarah must,

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

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

• A line on an indefinite block in the future.

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah777 - can we move towards a conclusion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for closure

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

Yes I feel that this should be put to bed here, with User:John also working towards a solution nothing more is served by letting this run. Mtking (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Now unblocked by the blocking admin, so I'm archiving this.  Sandstein  06:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block of User:Omer123hussain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given that you called it an "intelligent block" here in your initial post you clearly support the block. However if the block was actually justified, you would have been able to justify it with policy here and as a supporter of the block that should have been fairly easy as you are bias towards the block. Given that you've been unable to justify it with policy (± admin discretion) its pretty clear that the block is faulty. And blocks that are clearly faulty need to go to Arbcom if the other dispute resolution steps have been exhausted as they appear to have done in this case.

If the guy isn't unblocked in the next few hours (he's now done his 2 weeks), then I'll be taking this case to Arbcom - I'd much rather avoid doing so, but if my hand is forced I will do so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, what? Courcelles 09:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC) (Just to clarify, though there is no log entry that said "unblocked" in it, the block was reset for one second 24 hours ago now, which is an unblock performed in a way that also clears the autoblock in one motion. Courcelles 09:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Before we close this section, let me point out that at the time of this writing there are still several revisions of the BLP noticeboard page which contains his posted material: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] Should these revisions be "wiped out" as well? 98.116.65.221 (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Though this seems a good place to point out CAT:REVDEL as a means for contacting administrators about revision deletion requests. Rd232 ^talk 10:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by OrangeMarlin

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.

no sanctionable offence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

And just before this, OrangeMarlin called me "ballsy" in his edit comment [67] while on the talk page:

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

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

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

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

Having just read the entire section Ed wrote on that page, I'd have to take issue with the restrained comments made by Marlin. I'd say it's more to the point to say that Ed's arguments are what some call "a crock". And not of gold. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

71.85.120.252 and Victor9876

71.85.120.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Victor9876 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In a recent discussion here,[68] it was pointed out that user Victor9876 is a banned user who has been relentlessly pursuing a personal agenda in trying to coatrack the Charles Whitman article into a forum about some internal issue with the Austin Police Department. The discussion indicated that 71.85.120.252 is a sock of Victor9876. Therefore I am removing the IP's comments as being those of a banned user. Any question, all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As he's fairly upfront that he is indeed Vic, I've blocked the IP and left instructions on how to appeal a ban. Kuru (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Dispute at Computer

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.

Closing due to staleness. Not sure why something that happened so long ago is even being brought here at this time, but it appears to be a matter that was settled many years ago. I understand that old grudges die hard, but I honestly think it's better to leave the past in the past with something like this; especially considering that there really could have been much worse reactions to the situation. — Ched :  ?  15:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Because of the gravity of the matter and the fact that the sub-content of five year old user pages that I am using for my research are being deleted (standard clean-up), I have decided to present this case now in this discussion.

About a month ago I was verbaly harrassed, threatened, insulted, during a period of 5 days (and 40k of discussion) by ErrantX, an administrator and Nafsadh, a user, simply for removing unreferenced material from the computer article. From the moment we started, it took less than 24 hours for our "discussion" to turn into a relentless four day attack centered around a paragraph that I had written in the same article about the influence of mechanical calculators on the developement and ubiquitous spread of the computer.

My purpose is to expose an absolutely inapropriate behavior, especialy coming from an administrator. Furthermore, during the course of our "discussion", Errantx behaved in a very unexpected way for a 23 year old individual with an MSEE and after looking at his two part history (2006-7 & 2009-11), I beleive that the NEW ErrantX is not the soft spoken tmorton166 of 5 years ago.

Five years ago, on May 23, 2006 at 15:20, in his User page, tmorton166 described himself (this sub-page page was deleted a week ago) as "Courteous, kind and friendly - if not then it is not me editing" which further proves my point since ErrantX was anything but that during our discussion, unfortunatly this page, amongst others written by tmorton166, was deleted in a cleanup a week ago. Interrestingly enough, Errantx added the picture of an adult person in front of a computer on his user page after our discussion ended. The totally different points of interest and area of expertise of Errantx and tmorton166 are suspicious. The gentle tmorton166 best described himself and his accomplishments in his failed administrator request in 2006.

• Unexpected behaviors: I started to doubt that Errantx is a 23 year old student that was studying for an MSEE 5 years prior when he stated: "I wrote a whole section on the problems... but am not posting it because I went into detail on the problems, which you mostly ignored, above". This kind of comment should be expected from an early teen person, not a young adult and even less from an administrator. NafSadh is not far behind with "I felt offended by some of your talk revealing your own level of expertise which seemed like you looked down on us".

• Threat: My strong stand is that, disputed edits by Ezrdr, those we wanted and tried to resolve, should be eliminated. Any other editors' act on this regard is NECESSARY.

• Insults: It may well be, but your view is irrelevant using Facepalm in the comment, and also the comment: it was like beating my head against a brick wall communicating the problem to you

• Discussion: The discussion took five days and was divided into

Talk:Computer#Unsubstantiated statement about the castle rock

Talk:Computer#Unreferenced

Talk:Computer#From sublime to ridiculous

Talk:Computer#Reference showing that Electronic calculators come from Mechanical calculators

Talk:Computer#Definition of Harassment

Talk:Computer#Was the computer first Theorized By Babbage while trying to develop more powerful mechanical calculators

Talk:Computer#Was Babbage developing more powerful mechanical calculators ?

Talk:Computer#Can the invention of the microprocessor by Intel while developing a calculator engine be called Serendipity

Talk:Computer#Is the Electronic calculator a direct descendant of the Mechanical calculator ?

• Discussing in bad faith: This is sprinkled all over the discussion.

This discussion should have never happened in the first place since removing unreferenced material is a pillars of Wikipedia. An administrator should know that.

--Ezrdr (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

OK! it is now a bit harsh and rude. Two editors tried to negotiate with a single editor, Ezrdr, but failed coz, I'm afraid (& although it sounds rude) he has always looked down upon us and does not have any intention to try to understand others' views. There had already been a consensus against Ezrdr's edits (2 against 1), but both editors tried to remain cool and avoid edit war. The outcome is this ANI :@

Either all other editors are too young or Ezrdr is too experienced (Sorry for PA, but Ezrdr has also committed such PA so many times)

I don't have nothing more to say. » nafSadh did say 12:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, well. I just got in from taking our scouts camping, so am tired and grumpy and my not be as polite here as I should be. Some background:

Primarily this is content dispute - one that Ezrdr has actually "won" because I gave up. The initial removal of material was ultimately justified, my argument at the outset was that the source provided was only an offline reference and so the material was not unverified. Ezrdr did not seem to understand this distinction. In the process I noticed a paragraph Ezrdr had added without sources - given his previous comments about unreferenced material I don't know why he is surprised I questioned it :S particularly given the nature of the content! Almost immediately we were accused of harassing Ezrdr; and that pretty much set the scene for the whole conversation.

Ezrdr is misrepresenting my comments above. I admit to getting wound up with him, having tried to explain my issues with his proposed content - for example he is sourcing that the invention of the microprocessor as fortuitous to a page on the Intel website about the first processor - which makes no comments about such things. Hence the comment the discovery of the microprocessor - and then saying "wasn't that lucky". It may well be, but your view is irrelevant :). If that came across as rude, well, obviously I apologise. But this is the core of my frustration in discussions with him. I thought that was a fairly clear concept to try and communicate (i.e. we need reliable sources, not our own views) but it just didn't seem to get through - it may well be my fault in not communicating it well.

The My strong stand comment is not mine, and I disagree with it because I don't like removing disputed material unless it really needs to be.

The basic core of the dispute is that I think some of the views expressed in that paragraph are either OR or not currently sourced, and I would like them to be well sourced. I'm not sure Ezrdr quite got that, and as he started section after section I lost interest in trying to explain it to him. It was hard to keep track of the different threads started and the scope of the discussion.

However; I only snapped at him once and I think the rest of the discussion shows me being polite, if frustrated.

I am not sure why "sockpuppetry" has been used in the title, unless the suggestion is that he believes Nafsadh and I are the same person :S

As to the comments about my age and interests - 5 years ago I was 18 and immature, anyone digging into my edits at the time would see that. In a manner of speaking I am not that same person :) It should be clear why my interests changed; university and a career can do that to you. 5 years is a long time. Finally; I have been identified to the foundation, Ezrdr's benefit - I am definitely over 18 :) That's all I have to say on the matter of my age, other than to add it is a fairly pathetic response to a dispute. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Alleged borderline behaviour five years ago. Archive please! pablo 14:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment. There is no evidence of anything requiring admin intervention. There was a content dispute at Talk:Computer a month ago, no more heated or convoluted than many. The comments about ErrantX supposedly acting out of character in relation to things said 5 years ago are clearly without merit. The only thing that does concern me is the accusation of harassment, since accusations of harassment can be harassment in themselves, especially when they are without obvious foundation, as here. Rd232 ^talk 14:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mohammed Rafi

Please semi-protect this article. It is regularly being vandalized by assorted IP's. See this. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 16:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe try at WP:RPP? GiantSnowman 16:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the vile personal attacks by this specific (and apparently dynamic) IP, is a rangeblock tenable in these circumstances? --NellieBly (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior in talk computer

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.

See#Dispute at Computer, above. lifebaka++ 21:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion on my being harrassed by an administrator was closed rapidly claiming that it was more than 5 years old and since the incident happened just one month ago, I am reopening it. I don't understand why my original title was renamed just talk Computer.

About a month ago I was verbaly harrassed, threatened, insulted, during a period of 5 days (and 40k of discussion) by ErrantX, an administrator and Nafsadh, a user, simply for removing unreferenced material from the computer article. From the moment we started, it took less than 24 hours for our "discussion" to turn into a relentless four day attack centered around a paragraph that I had written in the same article.

I believe that Errantx which took over the account of tmorton166 are two different persons.

Five years ago, on May 23, 2006 at 15:20, in his User page, tmorton166 described himself (this sub-page page was deleted a week ago) as "Courteous, kind and friendly - if not then it is not me editing".

Last month, ErrantX behaved in an uncourteous, unkind and unfriendly way.

During this discussion the protagonists showed:

• Use of improper language.

• Unexpected behaviors: comments like: "I wrote a whole section on the problems... but am not posting it because I went into detail on the problems, which you mostly ignored, above". This kind of comment should be expected from an early teen person, not a young adult and even less from an administrator. NafSadh is not far behind with "I felt offended by some of your talk revealing your own level of expertise which seemed like you looked down on us".

• Threat: My strong stand is that, disputed edits by Ezrdr, those we wanted and tried to resolve, should be eliminated. Any other editors' act on this regard is NECESSARY.

• Insults: It may well be, but your view is irrelevant using Facepalm in the comment, and also the comment: it was like beating my head against a brick wall communicating the problem to you

• Discussion: The discussion that took place for five days in April 2011 had the following hearders:

Talk:Computer#Unsubstantiated statement about the castle rock

Talk:Computer#Unreferenced

Talk:Computer#From sublime to ridiculous

Talk:Computer#Reference showing that Electronic calculators come from Mechanical calculators

Talk:Computer#Definition of Harassment

Talk:Computer#Was the computer first Theorized By Babbage while trying to develop more powerful mechanical calculators

Talk:Computer#Was Babbage developing more powerful mechanical calculators ?

Talk:Computer#Can the invention of the microprocessor by Intel while developing a calculator engine be called Serendipity

Talk:Computer#Is the Electronic calculator a direct descendant of the Mechanical calculator ?

• Discussing in bad faith: This is sprinkled all over the discussion.

--Ezrdr (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This belongs in WP:WQA not here. There is nothing requiring admin attention William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As you were told before re-posting this thread... GiantSnowman 21:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As someone who takes WP:CIVIL very seriously, and someone who is generally supporting of new users, I'm afraid there isn't any uncivil behaviour towards you on that talk page. Possibly some form of dispute resolution, such as a third opinion would be good.

I think this is probably the wrong place for this discussion and that WP:WQA looks better, but <shrug> it doesn't seem worth arguing about that too much. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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.

Extended topic ban enacted, per Dougweller's proposal. Rd232 ^talk 03:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

---

After[69] and then[70] Terra Novus (talk · contribs) was topic banned "from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed". During the discussion at the first link he was asked by an editor "can you stick around and limit yourself to non-controversial articles (nothing remotely related to politics, religion, climate change and environment, etc.) and adhere to the suggestions others have made above re use of talk pages, etc.?". His reply was " I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area.".

Now that editor has posted to my talk page saying that this promise has been breeched. See[71] for his discussion with Terra Novus. It's clear although he may not have broken his topic ban he is still editing problematically: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical liberalism (political parties)which is an article he created which is related to politics (obviously) and he is also editing articles on religion, eg Sabellianism. Ohiostandard, the editor who asked him to stick around but avoid certain subjects, has brought this up on my talk page - he is also concerned with the sources used, saying he "looked atthe Sabellianism edits in some detail, and saw some problematic cites. One was to this guy'sblog forthis post/blog-article. Another was to this"article" on its author's own site. The site-owner has evidently started his own church. I see that the user extensively edited the Trinity article a while back also. I haven't investigated that one but I'd guess that the tendency would be to move it in a direction friendlier to Seventh Day Adventist doctrine, and that it might be a worthwhile project for someone to check the cites used to support the changes." I've reviewed Ohiostandard's comments and agree that there is a continuing problem. I'd like to see the topic ban formally revised to include those subjects he was asked to stay away from (including Economics, see his contribution list). Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

This very civil but extremely contentious editor has simply defied the community over and over and over, making [72] promises each time to reform and avoid a community ban. Failure to formally extend and record the topic ban that he already informally agreed to here would just make a mockery of our community enforcement process. – OhioStandard (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ban proposals (extended topic ban or community ban)

Extended topic ban

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

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

• Comment. I support the idea here, but in a post to his talk page (link/permalink) I've asked Doug whether he'd make the language of this proposal more specific and explicit.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose A draconian solution which is not going to help Wikipedia, and would intrinsically set an extraordinarily bad precedent. I did not see him editing any articles reasonably under his restrictions, which means the restrictions worked. Extending it to all political, religious, environment and economic articles <g> is an absurd over-reach. Hit him idf he violates the actual restrictions - but extending them like this is improper. Collect (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the "grin" in the above is a comment on my preceding proposal, I think I'm within bounds to mention that Collect is an admirer of mine, as I'll put it, and that I'm not surprised to see his contrary post immediately after mine. In a different thread now on this page he did the same thing, employing a sharper criticism than just the "absurd over reach". Search this page for "weird and contrary to common sense" and you'll find his 23:44, 25 May 2011 post, also right after mine.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support as the mildest of the available options at this point, since it merely records what TN agreed to previously, but did not abide by, when faced with a site ban previously. Unequivocally a last chance. (First choice.)  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support proposal, at a minimum. I would like to see the user contribute constructively, and if other editors are willing to scour all his contributions, and he is willing to broadly avoidall controversial areas, then I'm willing to see him have another chance. Based on prior behavior, I have little confidence this method will work, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.  — Jess·Δ♥ 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support a strictly worded topic ban. This has already taken up too much of the community's time. LK (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Site ban

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

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

0RR restriction

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

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

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

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

Mentorship

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for closure

De-archiving, this needs proper closure. I'll also ask at WP:AN. Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin reaction needed

moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh 13:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

One simple stuff, but Admin needed anyway...

Just follow the link... :)

Thanks! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrators can't resolve content disputes. Hut 8.5 14:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

...although they can point to other means of dispute resolution. Just follow the link... :) Rd232 ^talk 03:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Fractyl and writing prose

For the past several years I have been dealing with Fractyl (talk · contribs) (who edits as 72.184.129.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) lately [it was confirmed by a checkuser a while ago, but I can't be bothered to find the case]) in my topic area. As of late, several other users who I work with (Areaseven (talk · contribs) & AlienX2009 (talk · contribs)) have grown tired of dealing with Fractyl's apparent inability to write with proper English grammar. Whenever he writes prose or expands on prose, his grammar is atrocious and occasionally there are words or entire sentences missing that makes it impossible to even decipher what he is trying to convey.

I have told him multiple times (you can see several threads on User talk:Fractyl and User talk:72.184.129.252) to run a grammar check in Microsoft Word or whatever other word processor he has before he saves, but I see the same spelling errors and horrid grammar every time he expands an article. I have told him that I will revert him outright, but I often find that fixing his text is better. However, I am fed up with cleaning up after him as are Areaseven and AlienX2009. Something needs to be done.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have spell check. Besides, I'm trying to better myself. I am sorry if you think otherwise.Fractyl (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Use an Internet browser that does, like Firefox. And perhaps better yourself off-wiki. Everything on Wikipedia is public; if you want to practice with Wikipedia articles, copy them to pastebin.com or something. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And there's OpenOffice, which is free and has a spellchecker - see http://www.openoffice.org/ -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, he is just doing his best to provide information. I know I shouldn't be saying this myself since my grammer isn't well either. But these things just happen. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 19:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a certain level of competence that's necessary to provide that information in a useful manner. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is why I have brought it here. I know that Fractyl means well, but it has gone on for far too long. This goes beyond misspellings like "preform" (perform) and "destory" (destroy), but involves phrases used incorrectly, phrases used way too often that don't carry the right meaning, and words missing that make sentences nonsensical. While the topic area isn't necessarily professional, it makes it difficult to edit when I do not know what he was trying to say to begin with.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, I've had to deal with grammatical errors that are much worse than what Ryulong has described. Every time I post a plot summary on the List of Kaizoku Sentai Gokaiger episodes article, "72.184.129.252" literally ruins it with his own words that only he seems to understand. It's very frustrating for me to go back and clean up his mess every time. - Areaseven (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin closure needed

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.

BelloWello blocked for one week by Edjohnston for edit warring on Southern Adventist University. Mathsci (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Would an uninvolved admin be willing to close Talk:Southern_Adventist_University#Splitting out Wedgwood Trio before it archives? There was a partisan attempt to close it by Lionelt which was promptly undone by Hrafn. Thanks! bW 02:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Southern Adventist University is currently under 1RR sanctions. Of those who voted, one is indefinitely blocked (Tatababy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and the other (Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been blocked for a week for violating the sanctions. BelloWello is himself currently under investigation for possibly violating the sanctions. Under those circumstances, how can an administrator, uninvolved or not, decide on a vote that took place two weeks ago? Why should an administrator adjudicate on a content issue? Mathsci (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the current state of the report [73] on WP:AN/EW, it seems that BelloWello is again at odds with the editor of the page that reported him (Lionelt), whom he has labelled a "conservative apologist" [74]; and that he has reverted three times in 24 hours. Another user (Mtking) suggested there that he stop editing the page for the time being. BelloWello subsequently filed this request. In addition, he has followed the same user Lionelt to VDARE and is revert-warring on that article with edit summaries that display a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude,[75][76] irrespective of whether the edits are justified or not. All of these edits seem far too disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.