Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages

Resolved

 – Edit warring has basically stopped and discussion about several issues, while heated, is proceeding on the article talk page. Future eruptions of edit warring or other forms of disruptive editing will almost certainly result in some of the article-wide remedies which were discussed here.

--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil

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

I'd like some assistance. After reminding [1] User:Andyvphil that he's not to edit others' Talk page comments [2], he immediately altered my comments (to an uncivil quip) in his User_talk space [3] and continued his tenditious editing at Talk:Barack Obama [4]. I'd normally leave someone so clearly in the fast lane for a block to their own devices, but I don't appreciate his repeatedly editing others' remarks; Andy's been blocked repeatedly for his hostility toward other editors, and while others have tried to work with him, he doesn't seem to be learning from past interaction. Shem^(talk) 05:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Andyvphil has now edited my comments on this page [5] and again on an article talk page [6]. Shem^(talk) 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

By all means let's look at Shem's examples of my "edit[ing] others' Talk page comments [7]" and "continued... tenditious editing[8]". Both involve only the header on an article's (not a user's) talk page, where the guideline is: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."(WP:TPG) Shem's header was "This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus" and I first changed it to "Further comments by Option 1 supporters: 'This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus' and, after Shem reverted, to "Argumentative header redacted, per [guideline]: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.'" (edit comment "...I'll leave replacing it to someone else.") So the real question is whether Shem's right to protect the integrity of his remarks means that his argumentative headers can't be made neutral. And whether he should escape rebuke for filing completely bogus complaints like this. Andyvphil (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think this editor is headed for a long-term block or ban, if he does not either improve or lose interest in the project. Replacing talk page headers with complaints and personal attacks (here's another[9], and in this very section he edits the headings to turn a report on his behavior around to a complaint about the poster[10][11]) is one of the least of the problems. The site of the most recent trouble, the Barak Obama article (where he has joined forces with three other accounts to pester his perceived enemies with taunts like "Obama campaign volunteers" and "Obama fanboys", and broke ranks of the consensus discussion to renew an edit war[12][13]), was recently taken unprotected with a stern warning to not edit war that soon lead to the article's full protection. The other place he has been most tendentious of late is a sockpuppet report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth (where he called User:Josi "bad, arrogant"[14], "arrogant abuse of admin power...for whom an admin bit is an opportunity to stoke their ego..."[15]and me an "imbecile" and a "liar"[16]. We can and should have a thick skin about all this, but it's lead to protectio of an important article and the more or less complete breakdown of consensus discussions.

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

It was admin, not merely "user" Jossi whose actions in blocking Fovean_Author with no plausible justification I called arrogant. My retitling of this section so that it does not assert my guilt is in accord with the guideline I've quoted above, and if you read "accusation" into the perfectly neutral descriptive title "Allegation by User:Shem of tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil", that is entirely in your own head. Not that I am unwilling to accuse when it is called for. You point to my calling your addition of my name to the list of sockpuppets operated by "suspected sockpuppeteer" Kossack4Truth an abuse of process,[17] and I stand by that 100%. Since your cohort in the hagiographic clique (you, Scjessey, Lulu, Shem...) called me a racist without rebuke[18] it's hard to credit the notion that calling the group Obama Campaign Volunteers would merit one. That's assuming I used the term. Where's the diff? I'm sure I never used "Obama Fanboys", though it's not an epithet in a league with "smells of racism" either.

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

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

The editor seems to claim his ongoing incivility and name calling are okay because he was provoked by supposed "cohorts" who called him a racist a month ago. I can't quite follow that, and I wasn't involved during his last visit to this page. But he has clearly been confrontational and upset many editors over a long period and has no interest in stopping. Indeed, he continues after making the above statements to edit war on the Obama talk page over the very edit that was first complained about in this report (though he is now defacing rather than merely altering the heading).[19] That is particularly disruptive given the consternation, disagreement, name calling, and allegations of sock puppetry surrounding the repeated polling, with the polls becoming a springboard for edits that got the Obama main page fully protected. Yet another warning would not seem to help; he dismisses this as "administrative arrogance" and "abuse of process". Whether or not the disruption would justify a block at this very moment, in the long term something ought to be done to mollify things.Wikidemo (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I won't take the invitation to snipe back. He is edit warring on the Obama talk page, citing a misinterpretation of WP:TPG, to deface one option in a heated poll to Argumentative header redacted, per [guideline]: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."[20] There's a bona fide concern of sockpuppetry or at least meatpuppetry, per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. He's recently called me a liar and an imbecile. That's all in the last day or so. He and Shem are revert warring again in the past half hour over the title to this section.[21][22]. This is not looking good. - Wikidemo (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

(ec)Andyvphil is also repeatedly editing section headers placed on his Talk page, turning warnings to him into taunts of other editors. See [23], changing "Do not edit others' talk page comments." into "Shem's sham outrage," undone at [24] by Shem. [25] changed "Edit warring." into "Hypocritical hagiographers threaten," removed by Wikidemo with [26] with summary: "remove personal attack heading and replace with original" (Next edit from Wikidemo also replaced another header Andyvphil had removed, and added text warning about NPA.) Andyphil then, today, replaced the "sham outrage" attack header,[27], claiming "wider latitude on my Talk page." Most recently, as this is written, Shem reverted that last change, and notified Andyphil of this AN/I report.[28].

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

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

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

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

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

Sanctions

← Barack Obama is a featured article and one of our most often-viewed and high-profile pages. The editing behavior there is a disgrace to Wikipedia, and has been recognized as such by the mass media ([29]). No one person is wholly responsible, but any attempt to deal with it has to start somewhere.

• Andyvphil (talk · contribs): Four escalating blocks for edit-warring; has wikilawyered each of them by arguing the letter of 3RR and accusing the admins of not knowing how to count or recognize a revert (see here, here, here, etc). Citing the talk page guidelines to justify changing another editor's overly "argumentative" heading ([30]) is odd coming from someone who himself routinely alters others' headings into attacks: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], etc. This editor is gaming WP:TPG as part of an ongoing pattern of inappropriate editing. His level of civility is poor even by the standards of the Obama talk page; he's dismissed every attempt to reason with him or moderate his approach (e.g. here and here); and the denial of his last 3 unblock requests led him to conclude not that his behavior violated this site's standards, but that admins as a group are a capricious, ignorant "mullah class" conspiring against honest editors like himself ([36]). I haven't seen any potential for improvement here. This editor is playing a major role in the devolution of one of our highest-profile articles into a battleground (even drawing the attention of the popular press). I'm going to go ahead and block him for 1 month for disruptive editing on top of 4 previous blocks for edit-warring, and if he resumes the same approach after the block's expiry, I would support an indefinite block.
• Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs): Editors with "Truth" in their username seem to run into problems with NPOV and tendentiousness fairly often. This is an evident tendentious single-purpose agenda account contributing heavily to the poor quality of editing and behavior at Barack Obama. S/he has racked up 2 blocks in the past few weeks for edit-warring on the Obama article. Third edit blued out his talk page with a pre-emptive defense against charges of sockpuppetry ([37]). I would recommend a topic ban to see if there is anything more here than someone dedicated to abusing Wikipedia as a venue to advocate for a specific, narrow agenda. I won't impose this without further uninvolved feedback, though.
• A number of other editors at Barack Obama have contributed to the poor atmosphere there. This is not an exhaustive list, but an identification of a starting point for improving this situation. Experienced or constructive outside editors without an axe to grind are essential, but I don't think we'll attract many of them until the current debacle is addressed. I would welcome uninvolved feedback on the above, as well as any additional review of these or other participants in the article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing revert war

Now that this editor does know of the proposed topic ban, he jumped in to a revert war on the Barack Obama article anyway to restore a list of criminal charges against Tony Rezko.[38]. He reverted the "bribery" charge part of it two other times in the hours before learning of the proposed sanctions[39][40], so he is at exactly WP:3RR. There was another edit yesterday in a revert war over a broader section that included this material[41]. So the editor has been at a state of WP:3RR for some time. There's also ongoing debate, with the editor claiming on the talk page that those he is reverting are POV-pushers[42][43] and issuing warnings and appeals on their talk pages.[44][45] You might want to take a look at the behavior of other editors as well here. Kossack4Truth's four reverts are among a total of 12 reverts in the last +/- 36 hours (by my count) to the Tony Rezko section of the Obama article - all that after edit protection was lifted and people warned to not edit war. Wikidemo (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I do not wish to respond to this editor's tit-for-tat accusation except to say it factually incorrect. The three editors mentioned above made a total of four edits to the Obama article in the last 36 hours: 1 each by me and Loonymonkey, and two by Scjessey. Only three out of four would plausibly be described as part of the 14-edit (two new ones now[46][47]) revert war. Kossack4Truth has no cause to lump me in with the group he taunts as "Obama campaign workers"[48] - my edit was uncontroversial, unopposed, and if anything supported Kossack4Truth's position more than his perceived opponents. I've left a caution for Scjessey over his two edits today, urging him/her not to take up a revert war.[49] As I said, any administrator examining the mess should probably look at the editors on both sides of the revert war. Perhaps this can be untangled without going to page protection again. Wikidemo (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Massive POV push by a handful of exclusionists

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

User:Life.temp gutted the article, removing a total of 732 words in two consecutive edits: [50][51] I placed the following warning on his/her Talk page and on the article Talk page: [52] He/she removed the warning from the user Talk page with a personal attack in the edit summary [53] and discussed this warning in two edits on the article Talk page,[54][55] proving that he/she had seen the warning and was aware of increased concerns about edit warring. Nevertheless, last night Life.temp again gutted the article, ripping out nearly 1,000 words this time: [56] None of these edits were accompanied by anything resembling consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the second time in two days I've been complained about in a formal way to admins, and not notified by the complainer. That behavior, in itself, is uncivil. In the future, if you are going to call for blocking me, and start a discussion of that with admins, invite me to the discussion. I gave my opinion about who is responsible for the edit warring here [57]. I explained why campaign-specific information should only be summarized here [58]. I didn't say controversial material should be removed from Wikipedia; I said the details belong in articles dedicated to the controversy. Life.temp (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions by Ncmv

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article probation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(sorry for joining this discussion late, but I just found out about it) I'm really not sure why you would want to include me on that list. The only reason my name is mentioned so frequently now is because Kossack4Truth got enraged by a single revert I made of one of his edits when he was in the midst of an edit-war. After that, I was added to his list of "exclusionists" and "Obama campaign workers" in every commentary on the topic and a few others have repeated his list. Frankly, it's unwarranted. I don't feel that the nature of any of my edits to the article (which have mostly tended to be single-instance reversions of attempts to add lengthy commentary or criticism sections without consensus) justify labeling me as such. Also, the frequency with which I edit does not come anywhere near the pace of that page. I haven't engaged in revert-wars nor have I performed the kind of lower-level "2-reverts and then repeat the next day" wars that are the real problem. If I am included on this list, then the question is this: If a person is editing tendentiously and edit-warring, is every single editor who reverts one of their edits automatically considered to be edit-warring? If so, that would include you as well, Bobblehead (and you are probably the most experienced and cool-headed editor of that article). Is the only alternative to let them have their way and let the problematic edits stand? That seems completely counter to Wikipedia. That said, I would be interested in hearing from experienced editors like yourself and others about specific edits I have made which are problematic. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Including you.

You ignored them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[out] Am I correct in assuming that this restriction does not apply to reverts of obvious BLP violations and vandalism? I've spent a great deal of time on this article and it has long been a target of both, having nothing to do with the current spate of POV editing and I am concerned about this. Tvoz/talk 03:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely correct. "Obvious" - and that's the key word, it really does have to be obvious - BLP violations and vandalism can and should be reverted as many times as necessary here and anywhere else. The restrictions would not apply to dealing with those kind of edits.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Tvoz/talk 06:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated Suggestions by Ncmv and Scarian

NOTES ABOUT SUGGESTIONS

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

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

Agreed. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I tend to disagree with that logic - we should not be having to restart discussion the moment those so-called 'controls' are not working on a special BLP that shouldn't be having these problems in the first place. Nor should this mess spill again elsewhere on other related pages. So far, I've only seen a couple of the mentioned editors actively trying to change their approach - one of whom agreed to voluntarily take on the ban, and recognizes the need for the break, in order to contribute constructively. The remainder have continued to oppose and refuse to listen, or look at what/how they've contributed to this mess individually.
• The community's approach (so far) has generally been ineffective on BLP-related articles, with many proceeding to arbitration. Perhaps not nearly enough importance is put on dealing with problems, with more of the 'they'll be blocked soon enough anyway' attitude. Wide measures alone do. not. work. The (majority of the) Committee acknowledges and recognizes the community reluctance to deal with some of these problems head on, and there are attempts under way to introduce measures that will give individual administrators the power to deal with this rather than dragging it through every step of DR, or even community discussions like this one.
• In case it wasn't clear, the Committee refuses to overturn a decisions by the wide community, whether they are enforced individually at separate times or not. I'm not at all expecting or insisting these bans be enforced right away, if at all. But it's certainly something that can be dealt with here, much more promptly (and effectively). If both of you are still reluctant because of 'lack of evidence' and other formalities, then yes, we have no option but to take it to arbitration - if the community is bold in taking effective preventative steps before hand (like now), then the whole ugly process won't be necessary, and we won't need to spend additional discussion time on this - yet again. The harm is not effectively dealing with the problems in the first place - if they were, then it's unlikely we'd have to recommence this discussion, at least about this group of editors. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why we're bringing ArbCom into the discussion, no one has suggested that this needs to go before the committee and I categorically think it does not. The fact that several admins have said they would rather start with 1RR and article probation rather than topic bans for a bunch of editors does not mean we throw up our hands and run to the ArbCom, and quite frankly I find that a strange suggestion. I still see nothing in your comment which explains what's wrong with a 1RR restriction and article probation or why we can be so certain that that will not be effective in dealing with most of the problems. Those remedies have not been tried yet, and trying them does not preclude us from topic banning editors in the future. Given that there are several people objecting to topic bans in general or to those on certain editors in particular, doesn't it make more sense to leave that to the side for now? We can't force consensus on an issue like this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • FYI, 3 people/admins + a blocked sockpuppet objecting does not = several people objecting. This is particularly so when 1 admin has clearly not examined the situation properly (as I've indicated earlier).
    • the ArbCom suggestion was initially made by one of those 3 people/admins in the section above this one - I've just elaborated that this is probably the step that will be pursued if the administrators here are so reluctant to enforce effective measures to stabilize the special BLP both for the now, and the future. This should take care of any hesitancy on the part of 'several' people.
    • as I've noted earlier, article probation is ineffective in stabilizing the environment on its own, even in combo with 1RR for reasons stated.
    • 1RR has, as shown below, gained overwhelming support by the wide community because of its partial effectiveness in dealing with this.
    • Bans have also received some sort of support by the other uninvolved users who've actually taken the time to examine the situation and how it came to be here in the first place.

So to respond to your reply, your 'attempts' or 'tries' are foreseeable as being ineffective by themselves (in the absence of other suggested remedies being enforced). This isn't an attempt to force consensus. However, it expresses very real concerns - a repeat of this situation (particularly with the same set of editors) should be avoided for a prominent special BLP of this nature - this concern would not exist if tighter prevention measures were applied here in the first place - something that the (majority of the) Committee has clearly agreed on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ncm, I really think you need to tone it down here. There are several troublesome aspects to your last comment, and in general I get a strong sense that you will brook no disagreement with your view which is really not okay. There are three (which is by definition "several") admins who disagree with your topic ban approach, and there is also disagreement about who actually deserves topic bans. There's not a lot of neutral folks commenting here (thus three neutral admins disagreeing with you is hardly a trifling matter), so it seems clear there is not consensus for what you are proposing. Simply saying you think one admin has not looked into it properly doesn't invalidate their view, and really you have no idea how much they have looked into it. The mention of ArbCom in the previous section was made by EdJohnston, who was saying that we should not go with topic bans in order to avoid ArbCom - quite the opposite of your view, and clearly expressed with a view to not going before the committee whereas as you seem to be threatening taking this to ArbCom. Perhaps you did not intend it this way, but your comments reads as though you are using the threat of ArbCom to badger myself and others into coming around to your way of seeing things (saying ArbCom is a probable step which "should take care of any hesitancy on the part of 'several' people.") Apologies if I'm misinterpreting, but it's hard to read it any other way. I disagree with you and a couple of other admins do as well and you need to respect that - this is not about the fact that "administrators here are so reluctant to enforce effective measures," it's a disagreement about what measures are actually effective. And the Arb Committee has never said anything about this article so trying to argue that past comments they have made about BLP articles somehow validates your approach here is not going to fly. I also don't think they would ever accept a case on this since this is basically a content dispute.

I still see no clear argument for why we have to hand out topic bans post-haste rather than letting more restrictive editing policies for the article have a chance to improve the situation. If you want to convince those who disagree with you of your view, it would be best to avoid accusing them of not having looked at the situation closely, or of being opposed to "effective measures." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you're advised to relook at what's been said - the suggestion was made by MastCell as an alternative to discussing it here - EdJohnston's comment was very different and not in the same context. Secondly, I really don't see how you could perceive that my suggestion that this will be taken to arbitation was as a threat - if someone feels that the measures certain administrators have applied are ineffective, based on poor methodology or otherwise, then they are welcome to request arbitration intervention for a binding independent view - that is standard - it is not an attempt to make you change your personal view or otherwise. Thirdly, you're welcome to think that there is no hesitancy on the part of yourself, but I think it is a general problem here in the same way it has been a problem across BLP articles as acknowledged by the Committee (you may disagree) - on the other hand, I don't think this will be a problem through arbitration. Forthly, if suggestions with poor methodology are being made about a user by an administrator just because that user has previously contributed to discussions in relation to an article, but has not engaged in misconduct (past or recently), then the situation has (most likely) not been examined properly. Fifth, this whole issue is about conduct over content - so there is no reason they would not accept, particularly amongst disagreement by the wide Wikipedia community. In case you've forgotten, Scarian is an administrator too. Finally, I have no desire to (nor will I) continue this discussion further here - you've continually overlooked so many points throughout this page alone, and I no longer will attempt to point you to them, particularly after you've shifted the entire focus of this discussion. There is no consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why you seem to be so upset about this or why you are refusing further discussion - again, that is not very helpful. I missed MastCell's comment about arbitration, but that user said it would "a lengthy, ugly process resulting in a series of article bans for specific editors as well as article probation" - obviously not a ringing endorsement. Again you are accusing someone (me this time instead of MastCell) of not looking into the situation carefully enough. You say I have "overlooked so many points throughout this page alone" - what are you talking about? Do you assume I am overlooking things because I have come to a different conclusion than you? I have said nothing about how thoroughly you have considered what is to be done, I've just said I disagree with your view. You can tell me you disagree with me without basically accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about (when you say I have not reviewed this page carefully, that's basically what you are saying). I have not forgotten about Scarian and know Scarian is an admin who agrees with the topic bans. Yet there are three admins who don't agree with the topic bans. As you say, there is no consensus on that question so I guess we agree on that. But there does seem to be a consensus on a 1RR restriction and article probation, so why not implement those now? Should we hold off on remedies which seem to have agreement just because the question of bans is not decided? You say you don't want to talk about this anymore, but I'd appreciate it if you could tell us if you object to a 1RR restriction and/or article probation. It might not be as much as you are looking for, but don't you agree that those would be helpful? In these kind of discussions we should try to come to some kind of agreement rather than just dropping the discussion because there is disagreement on some points.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Several days ago, I suggested a six-month topic ban for User:Life.temp and no other action at this time, stating that anything more would be admins throwing their weight around, since editors worked it out for themselves while admins chatted and did nothing. Now that Life.temp has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet, and we've seen days of chatter and mutual finger-pointing with no consensus on any further action, why not just let the editors continue to work it out for themselves? Look at the article talk page: nothing but constructive discussion. The edit warring and disruption are over. Let it be. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There does appear to be some progress on the article talk page, which only adds to my desire to hold off on topic bans. I also don't mind holding off on 1RR and article probation (though I do think that the whiff of stronger measures may have helped to calm things down), however I see no harm in implementing them either. If there is any return to edit warring I think those remedies should definitely be implemented. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Either of the revert limitation suggestions below have my support - we do not want a repeat of these editing problems across this BLP, or these problems spilling on other pages that are related to this BLP. I don't support the general sanction of article probation for reasons stated (elsewhere) on this page. Major civility problems are troubling with specific editors identified here, but not so much beyond that, so I don't support general civility parole either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this kind of admin-level decisionmaking, but for what little it's worth, these are some of the questions I'd be asking myself (maybe they're all pretty obvious): Would a topic ban help an editor cool down? Is cooling down the answer at this point? Would a topic ban send a message to these editors that they haven't listened to in other forms (talk page messages, 48-hour blocks, etc.) and that would cause them to be more prudent? Would the topic bans send a message to other editors who start acting up in the future? If topic bans were put in place, would that make it easier for admins individually or at AN/I in the future to come down harder on User:X, who was topic banned for just this kind of behavior ... vs. User:X, who caused just this kind of trouble on Obama-related pages ...? I'm not asking for responses here, just pointing out the questions I'd be asking myself. Noroton (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kossack4Truth banned

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

Comments by uninvolved users

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

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

Comments by involved users

• Strongly oppose. Scarian mentions "haunting that area making a null edit on the talk page and announcing he was still watching." Scarian probably isn't aware that K4T made a gentlemen's agreement with Wikidemo. K4T agreed that he would attempt to restrain the "editwarrior inclusionists" (mentioning FA, Andy and me by name) if WD attempts to restrain the "editwarrior exclusionists" (mentioning SCJ, LT and LotLE by name). K4T has also left messages on the Talk pages of FA and me. How is he going to make any effort to restrain us if he doesn't watch the article and the Talk page? Scarian is reading some sort of sinister motive into it, but all I see is K4T trying to show that he will honor the agreement he made with WD.
• He did take a voluntary 30-day topic ban. Nobody made him do it, and he is honoring it. This indicates that he has admitted his conduct is part of the problem. That, plus his constructive comments to several editors on their Talk page (best example at User talk:Bigtimepeace), show that he's doing the right thing. Further protection for the project is unnecessary and counterproductive. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as excessive and out of proportion with remedies for the other involved editors. For the most part I don't see anything to be gained by singling some people out for harsher treatment than others. Given that (almost) everyone is trying to find a way to get along now it's best to a fresh chance to everyone who has agreed to cooperate, and deal with people firmly only if they cause new disruption. Assuming the sockpuppet accusations do not pan out (and they don't seem to), K4T's overall participation here as much as I have complained at times seems to be in good faith. K4T writes well, is capable of positive contributions, and seems to want to work together at this point. I was a little perplexed by that "null edit" also but I don't see it as anything sinister. Maybe just a little too wound up in process still. Everyone involved needs to be counseled that the goal is to go back to editing this article and articles on other subjects without having to think of truces, agreements, alliances, policing, watching over things, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly support. Actually, not nearly long enough time, but at least it would be a start. Having a sockpuppet vote "oppose" just continues the bad faith. LotLE×talk 00:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed

2) [removed for now - WorkerBee74 was blocked and it seems to has served the purpose of this ban proposal simultaneously]

Removed

3) [removed - Fovean_Author has been blocked for six months for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing]

Removed

4) [removed - confident that Scjessey and Lulu_of_the_Lotus_Eaters will take the necessary break, so this is not formally needed]

Since topic bans seem to have fallen out of favor, I would like to indicate my desire to return to the discussion at Talk:Barack Obama. There seems to be a consensus-building attempt going on there that I would like to get involved in. I am not planning to edit the article itself. I'll hold off until tomorrow to give any interested parties a chance to comment on my possible return. Feel free to comment on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Momentarily, I'm not worried about edit-warring because the page has been fully protected, and will remain that way for some time. The talk page discussions are still quite mixed though. If you can fully stay away from the topic for between 2-3 more days, and agree to contribute constructively thereafter, then I have no issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with that, although I'd like to think I always contribute constructively. After reviewing some of my comments over the last couple of months, I concede that I may have been a little acerbic from time to time - a product of frustration, perhaps. I've just looked at the recent history at Barack Obama, and I'm not entirely sure why it has been fully protected. It didn't seem like there was any edit warring going on at the time. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed

5) [removed - Life.temp has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet]

1RR on certain editors on Obama-related pages

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

Comments by uninvolved users

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

• Support - I think it's the best route. Mainly it will keep editors in line and they will be able to "police" themselves. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support --Floridianed (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

I have two questions:

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

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

Answers:

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

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

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

When EvilSpartan asked about the Bill Ayers business at WP:BLP/N, I suggested they not comment on it before the proposal was resolved, and the last time I checked they did ignore it, but now I'm sorry I said that. It would be a really good idea for Sjessey to consult someone or someones very knowledgeable about WP:BLP who would tell him just how wrong he and a slew of other editors on the Talk:Barack Obama page are on this. In any event, since information on Ayers has been discussed and no consensus has been reached, it can't be restored to the page unless a consensus forms to do so. Edits that add Ayers material should be reverted at this point. Noroton (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

His name was meant to be on the list, but I'd missed it - I've added it in now. If you change your mind, please strike through your previous comment (above) rather than delete it. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the Andyvphil, so I've striken out that portion of my comment, but I'm still concerned that Life.temp and Quartermaster are included on the list. Would it be possible to create a new section for them getting 1RR as you did up above with the topic ban? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Life.temp is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet so he's been excluded. In any case, there should be no need for a user to exceed 1RR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Support as a second-best proposal. A 1RR restriction on all editors seems even better to me, but I'm not very familiar with the gamesmanship that is played with reverting. I think a number of new editors who have shown up on the page and reverted have not all been sockpuppets, so restricting all editors might work better. This and many of the other proposals here that force editors to try to work together if they want changes are all helpful. Noroton (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Qualified support. If admins such as BTP will closely monitor the article and Talk page, reverting any substantial edits that are unsupported by consensus (with warnings or blocks of increasing length as appropriate to offending editors), then this can work. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support but see no reason not to extend this to all editors (with some qualifications, discussed in that proposal) Wikidemo (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[Life.temp's comment removed per 5]

1RR on all editors on Obama-related pages

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

Comments by uninvolved users

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

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

Comments by involved users

• Support - See my comments here. That being said, a general 1RR/civility probation on the topic as a whole is probably in order as more than likely any list that is confined to a specific number of users will grow quickly the farther we get into the election cycle. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support — Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I take this to mean that if someone makes an edit and it is reverted, no further reverting should take place and the matter should be discussed on the talk page. Makes sense. Noroton (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(to Norton) - I think this means that no single editor may revert more than once. You might want to look at WP:3RR and WP:EW for some language as to what is considered a reversion. Tag-teaming could remain a problem, but it may informally still be considered meat-puppetry or simply tendentious editing. Wikidemo (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll still support. Noroton (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - with some leniency for acknowledged or self-reverted mistakes and also new editors who miss the notice. Also, we should re-evaluate and consider relaxing this after a month or two, and again after the election. There's no reason to edit war, period, but singling out the Obama pages for indefinite special watch could be a burden and may be unnecessary if we get back to normal editing. Wikidemo (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I should add that 1RR restriction should not restrain any administrator who is policing the article in their role as administrator. Also, all but the most egregious and clear BLP violations (e.g. racist epithets) should be covered under 1RR, in order to quell ongoing disagreement over the applicability of BLP to Obama and other public figures, and because we have enough people watching that nobody needs to do it alone.Wikidemo (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

1RR does not include the type of vandalism described by Scarian in the proposal above this one, and it does not include BLP policy violations. Admins know that the standards of behavior expected of them are per usual. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm opposed 'cause I support the "certain editors" sanctions outlined in the previous proposal. Trying to keep the peace on this article isn't fun or easy, and we'd do a disservice to its quality contributors and mediators if their hands're bound due to others' bad behavior. Shem^(talk) 04:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • How is this a disservice to contributors by enforcing 1RR to all editors? Why is there a need for 2RR (given 3RR is unacceptable anyway)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Well, I too have a problem with this - I can support a short-term imposition of 1RR to prevent editors from edit warring - that is, making basically the same revert more than once a day. But this article attracts a lot of attention and lots of editors, often new ones, make lots of different edits that are in one way or another incorrect. If an editor spends a lot of time here and sees errors or otherwise inappropriate edits it makes little sense to say that editor can't revert more than one of them per day, and potentially damages the integrity of the article. I am completely in agreement with the intention of this proposal, but don't appreciate having my hands tied just because some people are edit warring. Tvoz/talk 00:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is about consensus-based editing - it really should be discussed rather than edited right away. If there's something potentially problematic (violating BLP policy) about something that has been added, then it should be removed and not re-added until discussion has yielded consensus. We do not want to see your disagreement through edit-warring or revert-wars - we only want to see it in discussion. Discuss before editing/adding content - if there's significant long-term improvement, then yes, this remedy could successfully be appealed. Editors who game or disrupt the system after being counselled and warned, maybe sanctioned at the discretion of any administrator, per the recently closed decision by ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am fully aware that Wikipedia is consensus-based editing and this article was successfully edited that way for a very long time. But you missed my point. New editors or editors new to the page don;'t always do that. Take a look at what happened today - resulting, incorrectly I believe, in full protection again which does the encyclopedia no good. This was not an edit war, it was a new editor adding material and then ignoring or not understanding a request to discuss rather than re-add, two editors reverting the new editor's change one time each, and someone interpreting it as an edit war. The number of individual reverts had nothing to do with it. I have put a lot of work into this article and I don't appreciate having my hands tied by this arbitrary restriction based on misbehavior of a few editors. It's moot at the moment unless someone removes the full protection, but that I would have to sit on my hands for 24 hours if another new editor comes along and makes a different incorrect edit is absurd and destructive. And I don't know who you were directing your last sentence to, but I am going to assume it wasn't me. Tvoz/talk 05:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The final sentence was a general reminder to all involved.

We are to avoid harm rather than leave it open to cause. Your hands are not tied - anything you wish to add or remove can be discussed on the talk page to yield consensus. Remember, there is no dire urgency to edit any article on Wikipedia unless it is violating BLP policy or has been subject to vandalism (especially obvious vandalism) - maintaining and enforcing BLP policy (as well as ensuring there is no disruption to articles this policy concerns) has greater importance. I'm sorry if you're frustrated and disagree, or any relevant remedies affect your (or anyone else's) editing ability. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • I just read that ArbCom thing. That's a pretty shocking bit of executive power-grabbing, if you ask me. WP:BLP is brimming with ambiguities, and decisions like that should really have been put on the back-burner until such problems could be addressed. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone post a link to the arbcom thing please? Tvoz/talk 05:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Special enforcement on BLPs. Modocc (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed

8) [removed - unnecessary now]

Removed

[removed - no longer necessary. if problems go too far with too many users, then the page can be full-protected and individual sanctions can be handed out.]

Civility parole on all editors on Obama-related pages

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

Comments by uninvolved users

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Thinking.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support Having stumbled upon this mess tangentially while removing a personal attack from userspace, I have to say the level of discourse on the Obama talk page reminds me of divorce or custody case depositions. It took 3 neat bourbons to slog through all the muck and now I have to read it all again to make sure I have it straight. L0b0t (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support --Floridianed (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

1. Support; the sooner, the better. Shem^(talk) 17:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - This is badly needed. It is near impossible to get consensus built on disputed content with all the name calling and general lack of good faith. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Strong support -- lack of civility has been poisoning the atmosphere. I know it's been more difficult for me to work with editors A, B and C after I see a lack of civility from editors X, Y and Z, and I can't be the only one affected this way. I'm convinced this is one reason positions have sometimes hardened, preventing a consensus.Noroton (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Message to Nmcv

A lot of progress has been made at Talk:Barack Obama. The 3RR reports have subsided. As a result, you are the only person who's still interested in further action. Give up. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he's not. Shem^(talk) 13:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. Okay, that makes two. Anyone else? Kossack4Truth (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Huhu, yes. Me here. --Floridianed (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what "further action" means in this context. Although not formally implemented we've effectively got a WP:1RR rule for all, and an administrator moderating discussions and overseeing the article. People have been on their best behavior for the past week, and let's hope it continues that way. I think it's too early to leave the article on its own, but at the same time I don't see a need for any further precautions. Perhaps in another week or so people will become accustomed to calm, civility and cooperation to the point where it sticks. I kind of assume that's what K4T is saying. Wikidemo (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey and LotLE have broken their word and have resumed edit warring

Both of them took a voluntary two-week topic ban from Barack Obama. For both of them, it lasted about five days. Scjessey, in particular, is running wild at Talk:Barack Obama, and both of them are edit warring in the article mainspace. So much for honesty. That's the difference between us: I can be trusted to keep my word. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a very vague accusation - can you provide diffs? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these two users have been participating on the main and/or talk pages more aggressively than one might hope for given attempts to diffuse tensions. However, calling them both dishonest may run into WP:NPA and WP:AGF concerns, and at any event will do nothing to encourage cooperation. Scjessey announced he would take a wikibreak. That's a courtesy notice, not a promise or an agreement. When he went on break it appeared that he and several other editors would face a topic ban. That never happened, so he changed his mind. He even posted to this page saying he intended to return early and asking if anyone had a problem with it.[59] No point calling that dishonest. Also, I see no evidence of anything from LotLE in the past few days that could remotely be called edit warring. Wikidemo (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The only edits I have made to Barack Obama have involved cleaning up after this guy (and there are several editors having to do the same thing). Does this qualify as edit warring? As I indicated earlier, I am not going to be making any content edits to the article at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of one (now resolved) incident involving Noroton (which probably would not have occurred if holding off for a couple of days like suggested), I have not seen any problematic conduct from you (Scjessey) since your return to those pages. I conclude that there no sufficient cause for concern. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Close this?

I don't think we're at a point of imposing sanctions on any editors at this point beyond those already imposed, and I'm not even sure a formal 1RR restriction is necessary right now (informally, edit warring, even that which does not breach 3RR, will not be tolerated). Things have calmed down (at least with respect to edit warring), but should things flare up again I think strong measures would need to be taken with respect to the article and possibly individual editors. I just don't see the need for that now, and discussion has died down here. Any objections to marking this as resolved with an explanatory note that discussion is proceeding on the talk page? Should problems arise anew, this page will serve a very useful purpose as a record of the previous discussion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. This page will serve a userful purpose. I think any issues we've had in how to deal with this matter are moot now. All proposed individual sanctions (or the purpose of them) have been served in one form or another, for as long as necessary (possibly except 1). I too don't think we need any other general/article-wide measures, at least momentarily.
• This is no longer about Andyvphil alone, but about the conduct of several on the entire Obama article - therefore, prior to closing, it's been moved to a broader title AN/I/Obama.
• I'm trusting you (or if you're away, another admin on your behalf) will continue to monitor what is going on there.
• Also agree that if it gets out of hand again, stronger measures will be necessary. To this end, the new BLP remedy should be helpful.

That said, this can be marked as resolved now. Close - Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm glad you've finally come around to my way of thinking on this. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)