User:Neuromancer has a consistent pattern of disruptive editing and talk page-inappropriate discussion, most problematically at HIV and Talk:HIV, and as another editor has stated, has "violated nearly every behavioral policy this site has". This user has repeatedly demonstrated an agenda of disrupting HIV-related articles with fringe viewpoints with no substantiation in RS. Despite extensive policy explanations and warnings from other editors, Neuromancer continues to pursue this course, including creating POV forks (HIV dissent, later re-directed, and Alternative HIV viewpoints, currently at AfD) containing synthesis, BLP violations and other problems. The user has been blocked previously for WP:3RR and given multiple warnings at the user talk page and on article talk pages by a large number of editors.

Neuromancer has also contributed several copyright violations, cutting and pasting from copyrighted sources without quoting or citing. This edit contains nine paragraphs copied verbatim from avert.org and a sentence and references copied from another website without citation. Warnings and explanations (Talk:HIV#Copyright_violations_by_Neuromancer, [1]) were ignored, with the user later performing another unreferenced copy and paste from a copyrighted website.

Neuromancer, after threatening to wikistalk ("However, I will be sure to peruse EVERY edit to EVERY article you have contributed to, just on the off chance you have somehow detracted from those articles as well"), has begun to make good on this threat by becoming engaged at Magnetic water treatment (an article on my watchlist), Cancell (an article contributed to by User:MastCell, [[2]) and Medical uses of silver, following talk page interactions, including an accusation of censorship, with a regular silver editor, User:Hipocrite. Each of these editors has warned Neuromancer about a variety of behaviours in the past, with invariably hostile response. The diversity and scope of Neuromancer's disruptions suggests that intervention could be appropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my voice, as an involved editor/admin, to the request for some outside eyes here. Neuromancer (talk · contribs) has been active in pressing an AIDS-denialist agenda across numerous articles (representative edit). Issues include:

• Persistent edit-warring (block log)
• Canvassing potentially sympathetic editors ([3]), [4], [5], [6]).
• Most of his non-HIV-related edits seem to be based on Wikihounding; as Keepcalm points out, they're drawn from the contrib histories of editors with whom Neuromancer has been in conflict (followed Hipocrite (talk · contribs) to Dennis Ketcham ([7]), etc).
• Creation of numerous POV forks, including Alternative HIV viewpoints and HIV dissent.
• This sort of thing - not that I'm fussed about having my IQ questioned - it's probably barely above room temperature anyway - but it's a bit grating coming from someone who's constantly accusing others of personal attacks and failure to assume good faith.
• Constant references to a "WP:HIV cabal", by which Neuromancer presumably means editors who hold the "POV" that HIV causes AIDS.
• Very basic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - despite extensive forum-shopping, and hearing a universal rejection of his proposed edits, Neuromancer keeps repeating the same arguments (see the last 5 or 6 threads at Talk:HIV for examples). He's indicated that he's "not going to stop" just because a "cabal" opposes his edits.
• He's cut-and-pasted a long section from an AIDS-denialist website, and then complained of having "hours of research" erased when this was reverted (will find diffs).

I would like some outside eyes on the situation, if anyone's willing. I don't want to be melodramatic, but these are the sorts of challenges that Wikipedia needs to handle effectively if it ever hopes to achieve its goal of becoming a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the diffs, talk pages, and assorted miscellany included here, this looks like a case of POV-pushing, with some intransigent statements by Neuromancer. I fear that this is just a continuation of a problem we've seen several times here over the last few weeks (and probably longer) where people with a strong, but minority or fringe POV feel like they are backed into a corner by consensus against them. While I'm not sure that their behaviour is indicative of a block, is there someone who would be willing (and more knowledgeable than I in these particular subjects) to work with Neuromancer to help them understand why their view is fringe and that this isn't personal, its just community consensus that happens to disagree with what they believe? I would also appreciate hearing from both Neuromancer, MastCell, and Hipocrite about their opinions.

On a semi-related note, how do we allow users such as Neuromancer to feel like they have been given an adequate opportunity to have their point of view heard and discussed and not simply swatted out of the air (not that this has happened here...but can happen very easily). While their points of view may be fringe, and not follow community consensus, how do we continue to honour their contributions while maintaining the integrity of WP, and without driving them away?

I'll return to this conversation a little later...its supper time! Frmatt (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that Neuromancer has been resistant to guidance, and has been very confrontational at times. The exchanges on Talk:HIV have been lengthy, but I do think some have been constructive - they've dealt with substantive issues, and resulted in edits that improved the article (only incrementally, though). I have not followed the activity outside Talk:HIV, but those diffs are disheartening. The WP culture takes some getting used to, and plunging into HIV was probably a mistake for a new editor. I'd like to see Neuromancer get some guidance, to understand the difference between disagreement and conspiracy. It's tiring and disruptive when an editor insists that others formally prove numerous well-established concepts that are already supported by reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who's interacted extensively with Neuromancer on Talk:HIV, I agree most with Scray's characterization. Emw (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who has interacted, discussed, argued, and usually reached something of a consensus with both Scray and Emw (both of whom I have come to admire for their ability to semi effectively deal with me), and whom I have had much more interaction than anyone else involved in this discussion, I would like to to put out there than I am more than open to discourse of policy, disagreement and conspiracy.
• Additionally, I would like to point out that I do not believe there is a conspiracy to get rid of me, or I would already be gone. My references to the HIV cabal are due to this post on my talk page, and is mostly an attempt at humor, not an impassioned belief that "you are all after me..." Thank you for your patience, and I agree, perhaps HIV was not the place to jump into the Wikipedia as I have. But I am here, and trying to make the best of it. Neuromancer (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the guy who posted that, it was really in response to Mister Hospodar who happened to post some paranoid kind of stuff on Neuro's user talk. It is supposed to be a smidge humorous; it's actually a rather long-standing joke turned wisdom on wiki. However, I chose that link of all the essays on non-existent cabals to highlight that there is no cabal conspiring against you unless you created it. I guess it didn't take the desired effect as Neuro began referring to cabals afterward, rats.

I full well admit that I took and ran, more as humorous jab back at you, and a few others, than anything serious. I don't think there is a cabal, HOWEVER, there are a group of you who very adamantly defend and revert edits on a number of similar pages. After reading your posted words of wisdom, I thought it humorously appropriate to throw it back at you in kind. My references to a cabal have never been more than half-hearted humor in an attempt to lighten the situation. Seeing as how you are the only one who got the joke... Well, crap! Neuromancer (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well, good to know now then! Thanks for clarifying. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, here are my words on the subject. Neuro isn't the only fellow who's made himself heard towards AIDS denialism on talk pages over the years. In particular though, there has been a lot of passion from him that is very accusatory, and this more than anything began sparking contention.

I really tried to steer the conversation as much as possible to specific constructive discourse about articles in question [8], but largely this opportunity was not taken advantage of. Instead, in response to his broad debates, there have been several clear, spelled out arguments highlighting the faults in the particular angle he takes on AIDS denialism ([9], [10] to name a couple i did). The AfD for the content fork of AIDS denialism alone should be a pretty clear wake up call.

I think he hears and sees them but is still trying to game policy/guidelines in his favor, such as omitting "although content may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below." to the WP:YESPOV quote in his response below, etc. There has probably been a bit a wikistalking, and cries of censorship/this must be heard/you can't erase history kind of brew-ha-ha, but I like keeping editors more than loosing them so I would love to see mentoring or fostering of better habits than blocks. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in regards to his below YESPOV quote with relevant (e.g. oppositional to his motives) info omitted, his response is this: [11]. A fairly by-the-book WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It could be that mentoring/fostering isn't an option after all. JoeSmack ^Talk 09:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Special:Contributions/24.251.114.169 and probably Special:Contributions/174.17.102.170 are Neuro, but he denies the latter here. Sockpuppety. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loudly claims the 24; the 174 geolocates to Phoenix, AZ, where the Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company is located. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is an WP:SPI warranted, perchance? Crafty (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro emailed me a protest. If it puts one of these many issues to rest (either way), I think it would be worth it. However, this is right on the line of CheckUser criteria. Up to you. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt CU would be informative. Neuromancer just posted on their talk page pointing out another IP in another region. CheckUser uses the wrong sort of magic pixie dust to determine whether this is IP spoofing, gaming by ideological opponents, off-wiki canvassing, or just one of those things. RBI any account unwilling to discuss and let the AfD run its course would be my advice. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that ANI is not necessarily the place to propose any type of restrictions, I would like to ask Neuromancer if they would be amenable to having an uninvolved editor work with them to help them understand the policies? Specifically, that when Neuromancer finds themselves in an edit/content conflict, that they would invite their mentor/coach into the conversation as someone who is relatively impartial and working to ensure that they understand the policies about WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:POV, especially when they find themselves in conflict. Frmatt (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

I would be most amenable to having an uninvolved editor work with me. I am certainly not trying to cause a disruption to WP. Perhaps an experienced editor/admin, who has not previously been involved in the topics of this debate, would be willing to work with me to fix what appears to be flawed logic. Or at the very least be able to show me a more constructive manner in which to present information that won't be as disruptive as it has been. Who knows... Maybe I'll bring em around to my side? Haha, joking.

end of response by Neuromancer. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an appropriate mentor steps forward, this would be possibly the best solution, and could be implemented in tandem with or in lieu of the sanctions I propose below. Neuromancer is a bit forceful and currently frustrated, but I think could be an asset to the project if given a little time and help to come to grips with the peculiar sourcing and neutrality requirements here. Any takers? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Neuromancer

I assume that I can weigh in on this conversation?

• First and foremost, I have edited in good faith, with the intent to better the Wikipedia in general.
• Secondly, I am not trying to push a fringe POV. This is my understanding, please correct me if I am mistaken...

• Wikipolicy requires at WP:NPOV that “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” It further requires at WP:YESPOV that “Article content should not be deleted solely on the grounds that it is "POV"" and that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.”

That being said, I have also reviewed WP Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which states:

• Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I fully understand that there are those who think that questioning the science behind HIV is ridiculous and worthy of censoring, however, there are those in the scientific community, who have published peer reviewed papers, questioned many aspects of HIV, AIDS, and the connection between the two. While the cabal[13] currently editing the HIV and AIDS denialism articles claims a NPOV, and that they do not have to give equal eight to fringe POV, a simple review of their resistance to the inclusion of balanced information, whether it be in those articles, or in separate articles, seems very clear that they are not willing to be neutral on the subject.

As far as "Wikistalking" as Hipocrite has accused me of, I cannot even begin to express how petulant that statement is. While I will admit that I have reviewed other editors contributions, and even weighed in on a couple of the articles that they have been involved in, I am not now, nor have I ever, edited an article simply to "frustrate" another editor. This accusation was posted to my talk page by Hipocrite just this morning. While I do tend to have an interest in alternative health treatments, such as HIV, cancer, etc, I have also edited such articles as the Fort hood shooting. I think it is an unfair characterization to say that I am stalking anyone.

When it comes to canvassing... I fail to see how mentioning to another editor that a discussion is taking place that they may be interested in, is somehow a bad thing. I in fact copied this practice from such editors as Verbal and Hipocrite, who routinely post messages on one another's talk pages requesting input regarding a particular topic of debate throughout the Wiki. I have not requested that they take a particular viewpoint, merely that they have expressed interest in the topic in the past, and may be interested in the current conversation. Here is the most recent example I can readily find [14], or Nunh-huh, JoeSmack, TechBear.

I have not cut and pasted long sections from denialist web sites. I did take a list of factors known to cause false positive HIV antibody tests, which had 64 references, and use it in the site, and the original compiler was given credit. The references did not have any DOI or PMID information, let alone being suitable for Wiki formatting. Each and every one of those references was researched, updated, verified to be on point, and formated by me. I would call that hours of research.

As far as the "creation of numerous POV forks... I cannot agree with that. I have created 3 articles here. 2 on the topic of HIV. Initially, I un-forwarded HIV dissent and created article content there. That was nominated for deletion, and reverted back to a forward, the next day, prior to a discussion or consensus being reached. So I then created a new namespace, Alternative HIV viewpoints, where I published relatively the same article, which has also been nominated for deletion. Again, prior to the AfD discussion closing, the article was wiped and forwarded, and for trying to prevent this, I received a 24 hour ban. How is consensus and discussion supposed to take place when there is no article to discuss?

So, salient points:

• Always in good faith...
• Been Bold
• Ignored all rules, except for personal attacks. (Never have I personally attacked an editor)
• Modified behavior as users have brought potential violations to my attention.

Neuromancer (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope someone realizes that it is highly coincidental that a user who has edited what - 5 mainspace articles has somehow overlapped and edit-warred against people he has disagreements with on 4 of them - and those 4 are in totally disparate subjects, with the note that he has expressed an interest in a 5th, totally disparate subject here. How far does AGF go? Hipocrite (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Incidentally, I became involved with Dennis the Menace because I was following AfD, not you. When you nominate an article for delete or merge, it is common courtesy to allow the discussion to take place for the requisite 7 days. Blanking and forwarding is just rude, and makes any discussion difficult. Neuromancer (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Colloidal Silver has been used in Alternative HIV and Cancer treatments. It is not, as you say, "disparate." I have not intentionally edit warred with anyone. After it was brought to my attention, I changed my behavior. I have been involved in edit controversy in HIV and Alternative HIV Viewpoints. If there is another article you think is relevant, please list it. Neuromancer (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Neuromancer's edits: article coincidences

Neuromancer has to date edited 59 unique articles. Comparing edits with the people notified of this discussion by Keepcalmandcarryon indicates that 54 of those have also been edited by at least one person on the list (I am making comparison using different tools and a little inclusion/exclusion counting, so bear with me as they may measure unique article in different ways; also note that I am involved in several places). Subtracting the AIDS-related articles, usertalk, and a few obviously benign cases gives: Aspartame was edited by Keepcalmandcarryon two days before Neuromancer's first edit; Cancell was not edited by anyone on the list in the days preceding Neuromancer's first edit; Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company was created by Neuromancer; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination) is clear, though Denialism itself was edited by Verbal the day before; Kristian Ayre and AfD are clear - Nm probably got there from ARS; Talk:Dennis Ketcham was edited by Hipocrite earlier that day; Talk:Medical uses of silver was recently edited by Hipocrite and MastCell; Talk:Magnetic water treatment was recently edited by Keepcalmandcarryon, Someguy1221, and me; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catbus had been recently edited by me, but had also been tagged for ARS; Fort Hood shooting and talk had been recently edited by JoeSmack, though that article is highly active right now.

Assuming good faith with respect to the AfDs tagged by the Article Rescue Squadron (none of the contributions were particularly combative except at Denialism which is a mess all around), this leaves: Aspartame, Medical uses of silver, Magnetic water treatment, Dennis Ketcham, and Fort Hood shooting. The last I think can be ignored, as everyone else is editing that article too at the moment, and Nm's edits were not obviously antagonistic; although I do think that there is some confusion regarding wikt:duplicitous and wikt:duplicative. The Ketcham very much looks like an attempt to engage with Hipocrite. For the other three, I do not find the assertion that they were selected without reference to editor to be credible, though I am willing to believe that they find such things interesting. This is again based on X!'s namespace counter, which shows an edit to Talk:Fascism as the clear outlier. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions

Based on the behaviors outlined by Keepcalmandcarryon, MastCell, and myself, I propose that Neuromancer be indefinitely topic banned from all HIV and AIDS related articles, broadly construed, and their talkpages; I further propose that they be admonished to avoid extending conflict to unrelated articles and to not seek out or harass any of the above mentioned editors. These remedies to be subject to review at AN/I or ArbCom, preferably less frequently than every three months. I would explicitly leave my talkpage open for any discussion, as we have open threads there and I am still willing to discuss with Neuromancer.

Alternatively, given the failure to follow obvious community norms such as engaging productively with other editors and not seeking out confrontation, multiple attempts to add content in an end-run around consensus, and multiple instances of copying without attribution, including from patently unreliable sources including virusmyth.com and IMDB, a full community ban may be in order. Please discuss these proposals below. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Neuromancer has been blocked 48 hours for edit warring, I have volunteered to relay their concerns here if necessary. As always, please refrain from piling on while Nm cannot edit here. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

I am repeatedly requested to find consensus before edits, which I have done on HIV, AIDS denialism, Fort Hood shooting, etc, etc.

The only real issue regarding disruptive editing has been in regard to Alternative HIV viewpoints. I understand that I do not own the article. I understand that it may very well be deleted in the near future. However, here are the salient issues that I have:

• [15], [16], [17], [18] In these edits, the exact same information has been removed each time. Please review the diffs. The entire chapter is properly referenced to scientific publication such as "Applied Environmental Microbiology," "Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences," US patent #4520113, etc. In this edit, there was no regard for the information. There was no consensus reached, or even discussed on the talk page. There is no synthesis. This is not an article that falls within the purview of Medicine. This is an article entitled "Alternative HIV Viewpoints." As it was created, it is not a POV Fork. The idea was to present the claims of scientists who disagree with the current HIV community. There are films being made about these topics. There are papers being published in peer reviewed journals, such as this one in 2008, which dissent on the currently accepted HIV hypothesis.

• • No consensus was reached before wholesale deleting MASSIVE amounts of information. No attempt was made to clean up language accused of being POV. Rather, it was just deleted. Not one person who has attempted to keep this information off of WP has been able to provide a SINGLE citation discrediting the information in this article. Yes, there is a reference to virusmyth.com. It is to source the quote of what certain dissenters believe was wrong with the current information. It's not synth. It's not there to support a medical claim. The reference is there to show where the idea came from. It is one of MANY ideas.

• Rather than editing the article, it is deleted, forwarded, called synth and POV fork, and unsourced. This is not the case. I have spent hours reading medical journals verifying each of the actual medical claims on this article. Granted, I did start with Christine Johnson's list, which she was credited for. But that is a list. Journal references that were no longer valid, or since debunked, were removed. Each citation was verified and wikified so that others could simply click on the ref and be taken to the article.

• I am being accused of doing EXACTLY what my accusers are doing. Except that if you actually read the article, and the references, you will see that this is not synth, or a POV fork. Compare it to HIV denialism and try to find more that two duplicate references. HIV denialism focuses on a POV that HIV denialists have caused harm, have been debunked, disproved, etc. Yet there are no references to where they have been disproved. I have looked for these references, and have been unable to locate any. I have found NON scientific articles, written by journalists, and judges, but not anything from the scientific community. Yet when I present actual scientific published works, I am POV pushing. This is not the case.

• As far as the mad props I have received for being Superman, please review my talk page.

end of response by Neuromancer. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neuromancer indicates above a willingness to work with a mentor to help them contribute within the project's policies. I think that this could be productive, but am myself both too involved and too unskilled in the area. If anyone is interested in the role, please step forward. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neuromancer's willingness to accept mentorship is encouraging. However, Neuromancer has yet to recognise their problems with straightforward policies such as copyright violation and sockpuppetry; their insistence that the "other" Arizona IP is not a sock or meatpuppet is, quite frankly, ridiculous. These aren't subtle matters in which a mentor's guidance could help, but I would be pleased to find out otherwise. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not terribly encouraging. I am going to ask the people who have commented on this thread to take another look. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indefinite broad topic ban per all above, and 2/0. Support full ban as 2nd choice if problems continue on unrelated articles (non AIDS/medical/science - broad topic ban). Verbal chat 19:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record... I did act in good faith. I never got into an edit war on HIV or AIDS denialism. I was accused of using those articles talk pages as a forum, but that was not my intention, and I have since stopped. I attempted to share ideas that I felt were in the general best interests of WP by creating a new article, which was subsequently nominated for deletion, and in an attempt to make sure that that article remained available for potential parties to review, I was accused of edit warring. Fine... I got a ban. I have nominated myself for a mentor, and have a couple of potentials currently. If you feel the need to topic ban me, so be it. If you feel I have been that disruptive on HIV, or AIDS denialism. Ban me. But before you do, go look at my edits to those two pages. Perhaps someone who didn't engage in the same behaviors I am being accused of, such as Verbal, Hipocrite, etc, should weigh in on this before a decision is made. Neuromancer (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for acknowledging I didn't engage in the behaviours you were blocked for. I've already weighed in above. Verbal chat 20:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indefinite topic ban. I agree that Neuromancer would benefit from mentoring, but I don't think the latter obviates the former. Neuromancer made some serious mistakes, and has been consistently argumentative in discussing those. Failure to demonstrate insight regarding past events, and pertinacious soapboxing in Talk space, prompt me to support the proposed ban. As I've said previously (above), I have had some constructive exchanges with Neuromancer. I hope that mentoring will help Neuromancer to recognize why this ban occurred, and to rebuild the trust of the WP community in general. --Scray (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban - for reasons conveyed above by Scray. It seems like Neuro still feels like this was a personalized issue that happened because users didn't like his views. It also seems like Neuro is still itching for any way possible to get his content back in, and frankly, the reprise of discussion on why policies/guidelines don't support that is getting old. I continue to support mentorship as long as all parties are amenable to it, and additionally that we get a highly active/experienced editor to do the mentoring. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban as per previous comments. Neuromancer's comments to a potential mentor ([linked by 2/0 above) show a continuing refusal to acknowledge basic policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:SYN. Neuro still insists that the issue with their edits is personal (it's not) and based on likes and dislikes rather than policy (again, it's not). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban, widely construed. I am unaware of any successful mentorship of a disruptive editor (counterexamples welcome). I see no reason why this case would be different. I'm genuinely curious as to why the community often sees mentorship as a solution to problems like this. Skinwalker (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban, as per Scray. I do feel that mentoring would be useful in this case, and in response to Skinwalker, I would say that why I support mentoring is that it gives the user who is being mentored someone who can review their edits and provide constructive criticism knowing that their mentor is on their side and trying to get the best for the person who is being mentored. This means that it is someone who is their advocate who is telling them when they violate policy instead of everyone and their brother, which can be difficult for a user who is trying to make good faith edits. I will say though that the post to the talk page linked by 2/0 above does cause me some concern, and I would strongly recommend that an experienced and senior editor/admin be the mentor in this case. Frmatt (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. To me the need for this was clear since this editor created an article on HIV dissent and responded to the clear consensus of other editors here that this was an inappropriate POV fork by creating Alternative HIV viewpoints, which was unsurprisingly deleted as another POV fork. Neuromancer has kept a copy of the deleted content at User:Neuromancer/HIV, which indicates to me that their efforts to force this into mainspace have not yet ended. This editor is completely unwilling to abide by consensus and shows contempt for both other people's views and our policies. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

• Comment Before giving a topic ban an credence, I would ask that diffs be included for the topic in which it is being proposed that I be banned. The only article for which I have been banned thus far, have been deleted from WP, so I would ask the following:
  • What topic is being proposed that I should be banned?
  • What are the diffs to any "disruptive editing" of the articles that would be included in the ban?
• I feel that these are reasonable requests, as there has been no specific reference to the topic proposed for ban, nor have there been any references to disruptive edits within any articles that might implied in the above. Neuromancer (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic would be any HIV or AIDS related article/talkpage on Wikipedia. You can find refs to your disruptive editing documented in the start of this incident report at the top of this section here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Neuromancer. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above and in the proposal, all HIV and AIDS related articles, broadly construed, and their talkpages. This would include, for instance, AZT, people whose notability derives primarily from AIDS activism, Mbeki, and pretty much any topic covered by AIDS denialist websites. It would not include other retroviruses in general, other STIs in general, or articles on people who are notable for reason unrelated to HIV/AIDS. This article is probably ok, but you should not add any HIV/AIDS related material. The community traditionally takes a very dim view of people who try to game the system by dabbling ever closer to the topic from which they have been banned for disruption. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please help. User Ceha has been doing personal attacks on me lately. Example, [19] He has been harasing me very much because I am persuing action to delete a frauduelent map that he has posted on wikipedia. The discussion about his map had a pause, then I restarted it again lately. I suspect that this is the reason for his attacks on me. Please help. (LAz17 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

I have notified the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 18:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I have also notified the user of this thread, at the exact same time as BoP. Great minds think alike! GiantSnowman 18:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize if user Laz thinks I've offended him in any way. I did not mean to insult him in any way. In this particular case that user have reverted my change without prior discussing it on the talk pages. We are having this discusion for a long time and during that time user Laz showed uncivil and rude behavior (I think that this report unfortunately part of his tactics). Time after time he is calling me a fascist. Last time was 1.November.2009. [20] He was previously reported and warned about insolting persons and calling them names [21].--Čeha (razgovor) 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we can ignore the he said she said, the apology may take us a long way. Can the two of you resolve not to insult each other, regardless of who insulted whom in the past? Also, if you all could speak English on the English wikipedia, it would be helpful, and not just for situations like this.--chaser (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. I had no intentions of insulting anybody. However I would like that the guy stops calling me a fascist. Unfortunately, I think that is a pretty serious insult. :/ A little bit of civil behavior and we should solve a great deal of our worries. After all this is an encyclopedia :) --Čeha (razgovor) 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this, like the comments preceding this for example, looks to be in Serbo-Croatian, in which case I guess you'll need to find a neutral translator to help us out. Or an admin that speaks Serbo-Croatian.--chaser (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that line has not nothing with user Laz. As mentioned before, that user is very rude and uncivil from time to time, and is known for using a lot of swear words (if you find a good translator you can read what kind of stuff that guy wrote).--Čeha (razgovor) 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LAz is not the only one C has targeted, I happened to stumble across a clearly racial remark that C made about me in the same discussion. [22] PRODUCER (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is clearly overdoing. Did I in any way called you some name, or insulted you? I even apologized if you felt insulted. On the other way you threatened to block my account. And user Laz, which is complaing about personal attacks is insulting me, calling me a fascist even if he was previously warned about that. My behaviour is civil, and I do not have nothing to hide. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceha is a person who becomes very rude to whomever disagrees with him in any way. He then goes about making a discussion as pointless as it can possibly be. A case in point - once a source was agreed upon on a map, he goes back as if the other person did not agree, and starts the discussion all from the beginning. So, he firstly does not want to move forth in discussions, and secondly, he starts insulting. This is what is the case here. Further, he goes about insulting and bringing up false acusations. I never called him a fascist. However, his map is contributing to fascist propaganda. The man has made a very controversial map of a region that is very very ethnically mixed. He went about doing this by on purpose excluding countless settlements. The map was a disaster, an ethnically motivated POV propaganda map. This was not my conclusion, but a conclusion of someone else. The bottom line is that he is very angry at me for questioning his work of art. Now that the discussion has moved forth and a consensus has been reached that his map is not good, he has resulted to regularly insulting me and claiming that his map is fine, yet countless mistakes have been pointed out to him. We are dealing with someone who edit wars and who is very uncooperative. I think that a ban would be a very just thing to do in this case. Please contact the user Direktor for more information. (LAz17 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Please do.

User Laz: a) repeated accusations about "fascistit propaganda" [23] Fascistic nationalistic propaganda is where it all lies

b)previous warnings by adminstrators [24]

c) blocked indeffinetilly on croatian wiki because of swearing. [25]

If anyone has any suggestion what to do with this user, I'm willing to listen. If need be, I will again apologize, but unfortunately I do not see that would solve anything. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I am talking about. I could not have said it better myself. A)Fascistit- notice the use of words. The real word is fascist propaganda, about his map. He is on purpose wrongly interpreting this to mean that he is a fascist- no his map only contributes to that propaganda - if it is intentional or not is the question. Admin warnings? Sure, but look into what they are about. You and I were edit warring. Interesting how you do not mention certain info. I was unblocked on the croatian wikipedia. The user Kubara put on purpose "wrong information". I beat him on the english wiki... it all starts with the source, apparently even he can not make up stuff without a source - though you do that regularly. Lastly, the word "zajebavas" is not messing. In english "nemoj da me zajebavas" means "don't mess around with me". That is what I told him, and with reason - and this is supposed to be swearing? His information was wrong, and if you do not beleive it look at the talk page of the croatian hockey league. (LAz17 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

I would honestly like that someone sees this because it's like living in a paralel universes. What is a person who spreads fascist propaganda? What do the word fascist has to do with Balkans in the end of 20th century?

The guy was almost blocked by an administrator because of his uncivil behavior, but it just edit warring??

And the translation of "zajebavaš" is wrong. It means to fuck around. That is the language which Laz uzes.

As for croatian wikipedia, Laz can you provide link for us to see your behavior? I'm very interested what they sad to you.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, user Laz started attacking another user (Polargeo) [26].--Čeha (razgovor) 22:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) fascist has to do with the ustashe movement. The movement never died with the end of world war two. It came back in the 1990s. It is at the core of croatian nationalism, especially claims that croatia should gobble up all of bosnia. Your map which shows the croats as overrepresented only fosters that. Granted that your map is not as outrageous as it was when I first started complaining, it is still outrageous. Direktor coming in to mediate the discussion gave you no choice than to fix some of the major mistakes, but there are still dozens of mistakes left. Several people have said that your map is not acceptable. For this you hate me.

2) I have never used or heard the word "zajebavas" as go fuck around. Serbocroatian is a very dirty language. We have words like "jebiga". Jebiga means "oh well". But it can also mean "fuck him". Almost always it is used as "oh well". So, I think you should stop trying to trick our people here in translation.

3) For croatian wikipedia, just go to the ice hockey page. You can see that there is still very much un-sourced fraud information. Kubara has backed down from the fraud on the english wikipedia. Neither of us were completely right, so we came to a comprise halfway inbetween. You on the other hand want all or nothing.

4)Polargeo was not attacked at all. He might have been intimidated with some sources that I posted on his talk page. How can one interpret information as an attack. He made a particular rape in a war article, and I told him why I felt that it was biased, and I gave him some more sources that might help improve the article to a less biased tone. (LAz17 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Exactly my point.

a) Calling someone or its work fascist is a grave insult and has no place in any encyclopedia, no matter what you though about or how you cover it up. You should be sanctioned for that.

b) No. "Zajebavaš" comes from "jebati" which means "to fuck" it is always a dirty word, no matter in Croatian, Serbian or some hibrid. It is not a word which is spoken on TV or in public.

c) I do not understand what you think that I want, but is that important? You had problems on Croatian wiki because of your rude behavior.

d) One word. Dictionary. And a lot of swearing. Laz, Polargeo is right. You should watch your manners. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your map itself is a grave insult. The mediator of the map problem, Direktor told you very politely and clearly how it is very obvious that many people can easily be offended by such a wrong map. Your map is a grave insult.

Zajebavas has nothing to do with fucking. In my years I have never heard it being used that way. Recently at a soccer game. It's quite sad if you think that people here believe you. But, maybe there is some dialect difference in serbian and croatian. In serbian the word is very common and used all the time.

On the croatian wiki the only problem was that one word. Is that rude behavior? I don't think so. The problem was that the thugs over there do not even want to discuss the problem, and the problem remains there. On the english wiki, the same article has been cleaned up by myself.

I did not swear at all when talking to poligario. (LAz17 (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

User Ceha is now trying to force me into doing something that to me does not appear to be easy. He is almost attacking me. For info see here, Talk:Central Bosnia Canton. Please can someone tell him to stop harassing me on that page? (LAz17 (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

• Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Proofreader77 (talk · contribs)
• Tombaker321 (talk · contribs)

Apologies for posting here but I'm afraid the talkpage on Roman Polanski is rather spiraling well out of any semblance of collegial cooperation. I've personally been accused of many things but being thick (stupid) is pretty low on the list, yet two editors Proofreader77 and Tombaker321, seem to be locked horns with otherwise other well-intended editors seem to be trying to untangle a mass volume of verbiology - IMHO from Proofreader77 - to try to step through any solution. I think there actually is some NPOV dispute on this BLP but after many days of trying to get a clear/concise "I think this sentence should state XYZ instead of XXX" we still seems to out of balance on the signal to noise measures.

I've first experienced what I feel are some WP:Own-ership issues with Proofreader77 when trying to remove {{BLP sources}} from the article, something that apparently happened many times before. The article seems well sourced but they cited WP:Original Research concerns but were unswayed that we had a more appropriate tag for that. I found that annoying but the talkpage on adding or removing content. Whatever subject along with many others was archived away as the volume on the talkpage can be measured in truckloads, mostly from this editor and those trying to sort out what's going on with them. (Note: struck example that was clearly a different editor)

They may be making good points but it seems veiled in layers of discussion including mark-up and redirects and frankly is all a bit WP:TLDR thus repelling away those who may actually be able to assist. Lately they have been admonishing, both publicly and on their talkpage, Tombaker321 fro removing the NPOV tag from the section, Roman Polanski#Sexual assault case. This is a 32-year old case that remains open and has been headline news for this film director as he was arrested in Switzerland in an effort by the US to extradite and try him for the charges. The content ballooned out of control and luckily a subpage for needless details has staved off much of the drama. There remains some outstanding issues but they, and other relevant issues to improve the article all seem lost in this barrage of words which I remain hopeful are well-intended. Some other eyes on this would be welcome as every time I take a break and then return to it, there seems more ratcheted-up heat than closer to well-spoken disputes emerging. -- Banjeboi 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proofreader77

NOTE ADDED AFTER REACTION: re markup at ANI
A submission to Signpost "opinion" request. Read the one on the left:
User:Proofreader77/Two Wikipedia opinion sonnets linked by "civility"

• Quick acknowledgement that I am aware of this ANI topic. Agree it is certainly time for broader scrutiny. NOTE: The underlying issue may better be addressed at WP:BLPN (a NPOV clarification in the context of a BLP), but the path of how this is progressing amidst some admittedly extraordinary measures (arising from the highly culturally contentious current-events inflamed matter of the Roman Polanski case) certainly has aspects which can well, and perhaps should, be addressed here.

  NOTE: I must deal with some real world matters for a several hours, but will return to give my perspective.

  FORMAL REQUEST: If acceptible, I would ask that complex discussion of the matter be delayed until I provide my more complete initial response. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: Banjeboi: paragraph 2

Mistaken (wasn't me)

• Probable intended editor 18 October 2009 Sinneed EDIT SUMMARY: (The refimprove was lost repeatedly in the edit warring over the arrest. Restoring it, with its comment.)
• See: Archived discussion: Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_5#Refimprove restored - lost in the edit warring after the arrest

(Response status update: I am currently preparing response with diffs/data etc. A complex matter.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ABOUT / WIKIBACKGROUND: Proofreader77 (me) sometimes does current events wrangling. EXAMPLE: The weekend of the Koss rumor about Sarah Palin (on Monday she would reveal her daughter was pregnant to the press, partly because of "the rumor" of something else), I was working the talk page, keeping rumor from being discussed on the talk page (and out of the article) for BLP reasons.

  re Roman Polanski - Very contentious edit-warring/personal attacks ... full lock from Oct 1-8. I began doing what I sometimes do on Oct 3. Lots of energy arrived determined to make the BLP as negative as possible. Lots of aspersions on the character of anyone appearing not in agreement with villification. STORY: I noticed one new editor was so upset by the atmosphere, they erased their user and talk page and began undoing all their Roman Polanski talk page edits that could be undone. I had not witnessed something like that before, and it hurt to watch. So I left them a note, put a picture back on their (erased) user page ... and they came back. Probably first and last time I'll do that. Extraordinary circumstances.

  Extraordinary measures: Banjeboi doesn't understand what I'm doing. I'm not at all surprised. What I do is a complex response to the situation (no, not the cause of it). Although it may not seem like it, I am a sort of practical expert at rhetorical interaction. The BLP NPOV issues of Roman Polanski are very complex, and affected by the set of editors who arrive, given the givens.

  I would like for you to pause now and imagine that I know what I'm doing. That there is a hard BLP NPOV issue to solve ... which has to be solved more complexly than usual. That complexity involves, of course, the editors at hand.

  And what all that text on Talk:Roman Polanski is ... is documenting the issue so it can be resolved.

  The arrival of this at ANI followed the final steps of documentation—including my warning[s] of Tombaker321 for disruption.
  (1st)
  (add documentation +3RR)
  (2nd)

  On that note I pause, save this here, and go to gather the next part of this response. Less words,:) more diffs and data. (to be continued in the next few hours) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What came before:

Stages - how we got to here

(Stage 1) 75K "discussion" of a block quote (lots of logic) Tombaker321 v Proofreader77's blockquote (Primary) probation officer's report (temp?) blockquote (& NPOV)] (Archive/locked unresolved) “ Unresolved Current discussion is locked in repetitive unproductive loop filling up the talk page. Broader issue of NPOV balance probably to be continued in NPOVN in due time. ” (Stage 2.a) TomBaker321 begins to reword and expand (summary) section of Sexual assault case (note: case has own article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case—detail of summary version should be appropriately limited) Proofreader77 documents changes/expansion with topic: :Recent rewording of sexual abuse case (claim: "more NPOV"/disagree) (Stage 2.b) Proofreader77 adds {{POV-section}} - Impetus: Tombaker321 had so-far expanded the summary section ~25% ... and Proofreader77 had experienced what kind of "discussion" would ensue to balance (given that there is no clarification yet of the NPOV interpretation differences which would make discussion something other than futile). (EVENT - Stage 3.a) Banjeboi (as doppelganger: Benjiboi) condenses summary to ~400 words—an acceptible consensus size for summary (which has a main article) (Comment: Tombaker321 believes this to be part of NPOV dispute. But Banjeboi/Benjiboi has no horse in that race. Tombaker321 is outraged.) (3.b) Tombaker321 edit wars to undo Banjeboi/Benjiboi condensing (with another editor - not Proofreader77) 08:48, 6 November 2009 NOTE: characterizes exp. editors condensing of overgrown summary as "weed whacking" 21:41, 6 November 2009 NOTE: Mistakenly believes condensing is part of NPOV process 02:27, 7 November 2009 (ditto) (3.c) Tombaker321 edit wars to remove POV tag (with Proofreader77) 12:20, 8 November 2009 01:41, 9 November 2009 04:46, 9 November 2009 (Stage 4) ANI - Banjeboi goes to ANI to cast aspersions on Proofreader77 :) [stop Proofreader77 from confusing Tombaker321 with all those words?] [for the good of the community!] ... but that is exactly what needed to be done next. The universe works. :)

• What now?

1. Tombaker321 is an articulate new Wikipedia editor who, I would say based on our many hours of interaction, believes strongly in his powers of judgment—and that his interpretation is actionable, and if his interpretation is not being followed by others (at least on some matters), drama will ensue. (NOTE: He has been encouraged rather than restrained by a more experienced editor—who will not be named at present.)

   Guidance: Adjustment of perspective re enforceability of one's judgement. Admonished not to edit war over a tag which says "don't remove until the dispute has been resolved." Do not assume you may make those you disagree with comply with precise specifications defined by yourself. Do not assume everything is such a rush.

   And specifically be informed that a section of an article which has its own article should not be expected to keep growing.

2. With disruptive patterns calmed, we can move to the getting on the same page with respect to what NPOV in a BLP means—as the specific selection of facts are balanced (in the sentences of the summary). At this moment, we are not. Perhaps incommensurable. :) Perhaps WP:BLPN? Or something.

   [CODA] It has repeatedly been said (misleadingly) that I have not provided any specifics. Of course it depends on what the meaning of "specifics" is. The demand has been repeated (as a rhetorical hammer) that "specifics" are completed rewrites of precisely what one wants to see with final refs. Let's be very clear. There would be no POV tag if that was the requirement before one placed it.

   The specifics I have provided are sufficient to convey, most surely to those who have seen the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (as Tombaker321 has) the information that should alter specific sentences I've enumerated (based on information provided in spoken interviews with prosecutor Roger Gunson and defense attorney Douglas Dalton). I have also specifically mentioned that if the summary of the grand jury testimony in sentence 2 is included, then a similar condensed summary of the probation report should be included providing the rationale for why not prison. Or, as alternative, remove it altogether.

   Those are specifics. But the specific that determines all is the meaning of NPOV in a BLP of Roman Polanski in the culturally contentious matter of the Sexual assault case.

BOTTOM LINE: An experienced editor posted a (primi facie ridiculous) "drive-by tagging" response when I first opened the NPOVD. Tombake321 has kept up the chant as a rhetorical hammer. Demanding "specifics" by his definition. That's really the issue. Tombaker321 appears to believe that he has perfect discernment of what the "NPOV" facts are. We disagree.

That's my POV. Proofreader77 (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tombaker321

• I am researching Polanski, and editing the topic. I believe a certain base level of information needs to be within the main Polanski reference, that it have quick encyclopedic information regarding what is in the news now, about the events 30 years ago. The content was about 4 paragraphs, which had be hammered out over the course of weeks in discussion. The 4 was reduced to 3 paragraphs, for economy of words only. These deletions were never reviewed, however they instantly became incorporated into a NPOVD which used the 3 paragraph version as the base line. I do not believe this was the intent of the editor who compacted the entry, by deleting specifics. The original NPOVD then suddenly starts with this 3 version as its baseline. I tried repeatedly to restore the 4 paragraph version, as the version for whatever this NPOVD process would be, but could not. I then attempted to gain clarification of what the NPOVD was asking for. I looked at the information about NPOVD and asked for specifics. Bear in mind the NPOVD was raised by the formation of Sonnet couplets.
• After not being able to get specifics, and my requests wholly ignored and the substance not replied to...I removed the NPOVD tag, and gave long details to as to why it was removed. I would spell out my concerns and they simple were not responded to in substance. There was nothing being asked to be done to remedy the NPOVD. However, there was an attempt to cap the amount of words able to be used to 500.
• Proofreader77 started a new NPOVD, to which I tried to show was new, and for the dispute to go forward without the anchorage of the past. Lets start over and move forward, is my logic. I created a new section for the new dispute to go forward. Fresh slate was my thinking. It seems like this olive branch is not being accepted. As it stand now, without clarification of what the NPOVD dispute is....I think the Tag is not serving any purpose....yet the implications of some amorphous dispute, hangs over all. I simply want to know what is the NPOVD? What specifically needs revising, inclusion or deletion? I do not see the 500 word rule as being mandatory. In sum, I want the normal talk and discussion process to work, as it did when we were able to provide 4 concise paragraphs with exceptional review and citations. Much of this sea-saw is simply if we can include, about 5 lines of information that is from reliable sources and well cited. As to the NPOVD dispute, 1rst or 2nd or same, I just want the specifics of what is desired or disputed to be raised clearly, so we can address them.
• I think Benjiboi's raising of his concerns here to be earnest, and well stated. Beyond saying what I have said, and then the history of the talk page, I don't expect to have anything else to offer. I have said what I needed to. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have someone here who is familiar with Proofreader77's native tongue and can translate what this editor is trying to say? Thank you. Hans Adler 15:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for the note on my talk page reminding me the formatting is unusual. See this submission to Signpost "opinion" request. (Read the one on the left:) User:Proofreader77/Two Wikipedia opinion sonnets linked by "civility". Proofreader77 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one also lacks translation. This is a collaborative project. Please try to communicate rather than show off your superb obfuscation skills. Hans Adler 15:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your response seriously, but also suggest that, as a collaborative project, allowing for the variations of speech of different people is perhaps worth considering. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, have a look at the edit history & discussion concerning Boke -- which includes this discussion. A few minutes of your time will suffice. -- llywrch (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was very helpful indeed. Hans Adler 21:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion (1) Advise Tombaker321 not to edit war over POV tags. (2) Admonish me for my excessive markup and verbosity. (3) Admonish Banjeboi for casting an aspersion on Proofreader77 by forgetting it was someone else they were thinking of (paragraph 2). (4) Mark it resolved. (I believe this trip to ANI probably set the stage for resolving the BLP NPOV issue—or if not, WP:BLPN is the place for that matter. And surely you don't want to read all that, do you.) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  (Must now sleep a good while. Excuse delayed responses.) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I congratulate all those who have interacted with Proofreader77 so far on their extreme patience. Is this editor currently under any editing restrictions? I am thinking of something like the following:

• Proofreader77 is not allowed to use any markup other than the most basic things such as italics, bold, lists and tables. In particular, Proofreader77 is not allowed to use colour, all caps, small caps or underlining on any wiki page outside their own user space.
• Proofreader77 is not allowed to make any talk page contributions longer than 1000 bytes and is not allowed to make more than 10 contributions per day to any one talk page.
• These restrictions can be relaxed on a case-by-case basis by a consensus of involved editors.

Would that have a chance to work? Hans Adler 21:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it would. First off my apologies for misplacing the odd ref tag issue at Proofreader77 when it was clearly someone else. I was using that as an example of WP:OWNership which I believe is still a core issue at least in this case. I would support a restriction on mark-ups, that seems disruptive in and of itself. I also see lengthy posts and excessive posting as violation WP:Talk which nicely states - When writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive, while others facilitate good editing. The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration. It may not be their intention but I feel like Proofreader77 is simply overwhelming "opposition" to anything they believe is the right way to go. This seems to be suppressing good communication and driving away people who care enough to use the talkpage. As far as I can tell everyone is frustrated and getting Proofreader77 to simply conform more to community standards for talkpage behaviours has to be addressed before anyone can really understand what the content issues are. -- Banjeboi 00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with your assessment, based on what I have seen so far and my own reactions to this editor's output. This seems to be headed to a siteban, but preceded by a lot of drama due to obvious good faith. In my opinion, if Proofreader77 is unwilling or unable to change their communication style, they will have to be excluded per WP:COMPETENCE. This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Wikipedia's consensus building mechanism. Hans Adler 07:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:TLDR aspect alone may be thwarting more eyes on this. The example cited here which was only 6-7 months ago suggests a real bad fit if nothing else. If someone is simply playing editors here for fools that is indeed dreadful as we all have better things to do. If not I think there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Either way it seems deliberate and disruptive. Maybe asking for a few of those previously entwined would help make a better informed path forward? -- Banjeboi 11:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:HEAR has been a factor, and will continue to be. Proofreader77 said:

"I.E., "looking 16 to 18" is not of secondary importance, but primary—something you need to know the moment you see "13"—because the sexual offense was not performed on an abstract number that Polanski knew, but a person appearing older. The medical report read: "Adult female." No she wasn't. But neither was she "Child."

He wants to mitigate in the readers mind, an impression of a child of 13, by inserting in the text of subjective POV appraisals of the girl's appearance. I spent huge time refuting this with pictures of the girl, who really looks 13, and objecting on the concept. The consensus was drawn that appearance of the victim would not be appropriate.

Proofreader77 then asserted that Polanski stated that she looked older, and advocated that the Polanski POV Defense needs to be maintained for NPOV. Problem: Polanski never said this, and actually under oath said he was aware she was 13. Proofreader77 just ignored this (5) or so times I asked him to back up this claim. Again WP:HEAR Proofreader77 refused to acknowledge his own error.

Now we have a general banner of NPOVD, with Proofreader77 saying its all about the "general issue of the POV of Polanski's Defense." What I believe will happen is these already rejected items will be inserted as a defense to balance out POV. Further than a defense position will be crafted out of thin air. Polanski plead guilty, he did not defend the charge of his conviction, the rest are procedural disputes post conviction. The urban myth that Polanski had a plea bargain regarding his sentencing, is 100% refuted by court documents, the entirety of the plea bargain was to drop 5 of the 6 charges. Full stop. Speaking of consensus so few want to get engage in this muddy froth, voting is rendered meaningless.

I believe that the flag waving banner of NPOV dispute without specifics, will be used to Trojan Horse enter back in, items that were already rejected by consensus. WP:HEAR Proofreader77 is making himself to be the orchestrator WP:OWN of NPOV Dispute and process. I am told to "cease X" (I have seen others told to cease Y, which I imagine generated the same flinch as I had). I don't get direct responses to questions, repeatedly, but I see plenty of "Let the record reflect" and "in Due Course" to build a case for summation to some body. Simply said, Proofreader77 is going to use the NPOV Dispute to interject items failed by WP:HEAR. Do I believe that the ambiguous NPOVD Banner is a foot in the door technique, YES. Finally, yes, I do feel played with, I am pretty sure I am on the wrong side of some bad rolls of a (20) sided dice. --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From reading your comment, Tombaker, I think communication is an important piece of the problem here. First, you appear to explain your opponent's position far more clearly than s/he seems to have, & if you are correct i believe I remember what Proofreader is alluding to: many years ago, in either Time or Newsweek, Polanski was quoted as saying he thought the girl in this case looked much older. (Whether or not this ever was claimed in court is another point.) If I am right, then there is a case for saying there is a NPOV dispute here; if a source can be found for Polanski actually saying this, may I assume you would agree that this should be included? Second, & perhaps more important, a reliable & verifiable source must be provided for including alternative points of view, especially when the matter is controversial -- as in this case. One can't simply say "I remember reading in either Time or Newsweek", & expect everyone else to admit there is a dispute. (Along the same lines, if a reliable source were found showing that Polanski claimed he had sex with the girl because he was being blackmailed by the Bavarian Illuminati, then it would be a NPOV violation not to include it.) And lastly, if Proofreader could be succinct in her/his comments & specific in her/his objections, his fellow editors would be more likely to be comfortable agreeing with them, & not suspicious about "foot in the door techniques" because they'd know exactly what he wanted. -- llywrch (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, llywrch, for clarifying some perhaps confusing aspects of NPOV. (I.E., Some may believe that information that is controversial/contested must not be included—and as you point out it is first a matter of reliable sources (and, of course, who the information comes from is important.) With respect to the particular issue of looking older, there was a long debate about that (finally archive locked as futile until NPOV concept clarified). As for sources, there are solid sources (Polanski in interview, police investigator Philip Vannatter's description, as well as Judge Rittenband's summary of the probation report's description from Philip Vannatter in open court—covered by LA Times and repeated in smaller papers via AP).

That debate illustrated the NPOV problem of different interpretations of NPOV, but the information I am most referring to is the information from interviews with prosecutor Roger Gunson and defense attorney Douglas Dalton in the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. (NOTE: I checked with WP:RSN and was informed that the documentary may be quoted or summarized as with any reliable secondary source.)

So, while it might be perceived that the NPOVD is simply a ploy to include the looked older information, what I assert is that the looked older contention illustrates the different interpretations of NPOV which must be resolved (to avoid more page-filling futile arguments arising from different understandings of the implications of NPOV in the Roman Polanski BLP).Proofreader77 (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proofreader77, you completely misunderstand what I wrote. I honestly can't believe I was that unclear. My comment was not what you & Tombaker disagree about. If it were, we would refer you to dispute resolution because content disputes are not something resolved here. My comment was about your inability to communicate. Hans Adler has proposed some severe restrictions based on his understanding of your inability. I was providing a more nuanced description, in hope that a better solution can be found. I strongly suggest that you review this thread, identify the problem we are discussing, & start working to address it. Because if you continue to miss the point of discussions you take part in (as you have in your response above) the community may take harsher measures than what Hans Adler has proposed. -- llywrch (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Below text was being written, before the comment from llywrch immediately above ^ --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Proofreader does not answer questions to him. He has chronic and perhaps incurable [WP:HEAR] issues. He is thrusting the appearance of the girl to mitigate the readers mind of the crime, he states as much. The actual records reflect that Polanski and his lawyers knew the victims age, and the exact details of the Plea Bargain. The documentary actively miss-portrays the record. He has [WP:OWN] issues, makes declarations at other editors such as "CEASE X", and uses the talk pages a plaything of this own, noting things "for the record", makes summaries of others remarks by reframing them to his own ends, archiving content, then saying the archiving evidences X.

Simplest recommendation: Ban Proofreader77 from any Polanski content, in its main and related pages. "BOKE" is a clone of Polanski. His continued justifications, and apparently thinking it just about "font choices" just shows intractable [WP:HEAR] issues.

Whether or not the circular self linking maze of highly formatted collapsing expanded Sonnet-ized commentary is allowed to surface again is not my choice...but enough of this for Polanski.

Sorry for the extend remarks here. FWIW, getting to read the remark: "This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Wikipedia's consensus building mechanism" made all the time spent seem worthwhile. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (Response to llywrch's reply to Proofreader77)
For the sake of civility and assuming good faith on my part (which does not appear to have been raised as an issue), let us briefly, if we may, hold in abeyance the characterizations of Proofreader77's clarity and their (very serious) implications, to focus on the parts of what llywrch wrote which very well illuminate the basis of the NPOV dispute which eventually led us here.

The sound all of you just heard was my head hitting the desk hard. Hard. (Yes, it hurt -- almost as much as my brain after reading the slabs of text I have collapsed.)

Tombaker321: I was worried that you would respond to the content examples, not to what I was illustrating. Although I believe it can be can argue that there are other explanations for what Polanski did, for it to be credible one must provide sources. If these were provided, & they haven't been discussed to death before this, then the NPOV dispute tag is legitimate; if they aren't provided, then there is no credible NPOV dispute. Whether they end up in the article is a matter for the Talk page -- not here.

Proofreader777: I have been assuming good faith on your behalf. In truckloads. My initial observation was that you did have understandable grounds for placing the NPOV tag. But my latest observation is that you have a problem communicating and you need to fix it.

Until you do, I propose the following restrictions, modified on what Hans Adler proposed above:

• Proofreader77 is not allowed to make any talk page contributions longer than 1000 bytes (or 100 words, whichever is easier to enforce) and is not allowed to make more than 10 contributions per day to any one talk page.
• If Proofreader77 exceeds that limit, any editor is encouraged to use {{collapse}} or related templates to redact this.
• Admins are instructed to modify or remove the tags & templates of any post Proofreader77 makes, specifically those relating to color, all caps, small caps or underlining on any wiki page.
• If these restrictions encounters resistance from Proofreader77 (e.g., edit reverts), enforcement may include blocks of increasing length.
• If Proofreader77 seeks and successfully obtains mentorship for help with his idiosyncratic style, & makes clear progress improving her/his communications skills, these restrictions may be lifted by a consensus of involved editors.

Any objections? If none are forthcoming, they should be enforced immediately. -- llywrch (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection: Administrator llywrch raised the content issue, directed a question to Tombakder321 to clarify the NPOV dispute. NOTE: I will be preparing documentation of improprieties of this ANI topic (inappropriately initiated without first discussing matters on Proofreader77's (my) talkpage. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You'd be better off, Proofreader77, cutting your losses & moving on. You've said enough here. -- llywrch (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Explanation: I had just written a logical proper outline response to both the case and style of Proofreader. I thought about just deleting it, after seeing the reply by llyrch, but it took 40 minutes to write, it did cover the editorial style too....so I just....

• Objections:

1. Because of Reference http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea10.html the "consensus in Talk" was clear, to not add appearance, Proofreader77, never responded to questions asked to him, his first response of sources was withheld to this ANI page. I asked for this over 5 times. I removed the NPOV flag 3 times because of lack of specifics. If this was raised in talk it would have been sorted out, if not sorted out, a NPOV flag could have been used, because it was specific. Proofreader77 is sandbagging talk. NPOV is a simple concept. [WP:HEAR] Violates [WP:AGF] [WP:GAME] [WP:POINT]

2. Proofreader messes around with talk pages. Please note he is housekeeping and collapsing comments in this ANI page. I don't see how your proposed response will solve this. [WP:OWN] [WP:DIS]

3. Proofreader77 archived an active discussion, where the consensus and facts did not go his way. This was objected to by another editor. Proofreader responded to them with

" Cease making bad-faith assertions immediately. (We will [take] that up elsewhere.)"

I believe you have remarks in the same category in this ANI discussion. [WP:CIVIL] [WP:EQ]

4. I believe the admins on this actual page have seen all of the [WP:HEAR] Violates [WP:AGF] [WP:GAME] [WP:POINT] [WP:OWN] [WP:DIS] [WP:CIVIL] [WP:EQ] that constitute Proofreader's style, which by BOKE and POLANSKI are displayed in full.

Since these "style" items are not even controlled on the ANI page. I believe the measures to address won't be significant enough to help

In a recent discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#User:Likebox and tendentious_re-insertion of original research) User:Likebox was placed under permanent sanctions (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#Results. Specifically,

If User:Likebox makes any edits deemed to be tendentious, point of view pushing, addition of original research, or disruptive by an uninvolved administrator, Likebox may be blocked. After three incidents the block length may increase to one year.

Since then he has continued to act disruptively in exactly the same manner, on the same topics. He has pushed the failed WP:ESCA guideline, hoping to permit via the back-door the exact kind of OR that got him sanctioned in the first place. In addition, he insists that the failed ESCA guideline/essay contain wording that directly contradicts policy, and edit-wars to keep that material in. As an example, note the following paragraph:

When editing or creating an article of any type, editors are expected to abide by Wikipedia's core content policies. Original research is not allowed, anything challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and all articles must be written from a neutral point of view.

One would think that this is a simple and uncontroversial statement of basic policy, but User:Likebox cannot abide it, since it contradicts his own preference to be allowed to introduce OR. Thus he has reverted it out of the failed guideline/essay 3 times[27][28][29] in just over four hours. I noted on his talk page that I considered his behavior in violation of his restriction, and requested he revert himself or I would request administrative action. He rejected my statements, removed my post from his talk page, and told me not to post messages to him any more (as far as I know that was my first and only post on his User talk: page). I'd appreciate it if uninvolved admins could discuss this issue. I'd also appreciate it if his fellow ESCA creators User:Count Iblis, User:Michael C Price, and recently blocked User:Brews ohare could stay out of the discussion, since I'm looking specifically for the views of outside admins, rather than entirely predictable support from like-minded collaborators. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of Likebox's principal opponents in the discussion that resulted in his sanction, and I inveighed against the OR-enabling aspects of the now-rejected ESCA guideline proposal on the ESCA talkpage and elsewhere, so I'm certainly not a like-minded collaborator of Likebox. So I hope Jayjg doesn't mind if I weigh in.

As I see it, Likebox's sanction was intended to stop him from disrupting articles and from wearing out article editors on article talkpages. While edit warring anywhere is never good, I don't think this incident with the ESCA page rises to the type of disruption he was sanctioned for, now that ESCA is an essay.

WP:ESSAYS states "[e]ssays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." The ESCA essay in particular sets forth the opinion of Likebox and its other authors (Michael C. Price and so forth). While "[e]ssays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace", editors fundamentally disagreeing with the opinions in an essay usually shouldn't change the essay to substitute their own opinion. They should instead write a contrasting essay, or discuss the issue on the essay's talk page; or if they think that the essay contradicts policy so much that its existence in project space is problematic, they should propose deletion or userfication at MFD.

People participating in a revert battle about the contents of an opinion page basically get WP:TROUT from me (and more TROUT for making drama bringing it here to ANI). Likebox is entitled to his opinion even if it's an unwise opinion that contradicts policy. As long as he's not disrupting article editing, if he wants to write essays til hell freezes over, I don't have a problem with that. We don't POV-fork articles, but POV-forking essays (or ignoring them) is a longstanding practice, so warring over essays and bringing down heavy sanctions over them is not that helpful. Less drama please!

I do agree with Jayjg that Likebox's version of the essay is better suited for user space than project space, so maybe the next step is to propose userfication. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lot of drama over an essay; essays are specifically designed to represent minority viewpoints. I suggest that Jayjg just calm down and allow the essay to evolve. The essay is not Likebox's essay (and neither am I the essay's creator), it represents the views of a number of editors. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked Likebox for one week - given the sanctions detailed above, and their previous history of edit-warring, I don't regard the fact that this isn't occurring in mainspace (ie on an article) as any mitigation. Likebox's edits have been resisted by other editors, yet they have kept reverting; a clear breach of both their sanctions and the collaborative, collegiate spirit that we are expected to adhere to. Edit-warring isn't a natural, or acceptable, part of the development of policies/guidelines/essays, any more than it would be for an article. Review welcome, as always. EyeSerene^talk 11:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg was clearly behaving in a similar way as Likebox as far as reverting is concerned. If we say that Jayjg's behavior is ok. then surely we cannot sanction Likebox. I think the one week block encourages more edit warring by Jayjg. As Michael said, we need to calm down here. On my talk page I proposed to SlimVirgin that I would be ok, if she would edit the essay in such a way so that in her opinion it could be an essay.

I also urge everyone to take a look at Jayjg's comments on the talk page. He clearly does not understand what the essay is about and he is reverting on the basis of his misunderstanding. E.g. as Likebox tried to explain to him there are no POV issues w.r.t., say, a topic like enthalpy. Jayjg insists of construing everything in terms of the editing disputes on politics pages he is so familar with and refuses to accept that there may exist other kinds of problems on other articles that he is unfamiliar with. The effect of this is that a revert by Jayjg is then seen to be edit warring instead of constructively contributing to the essay. Count Iblis (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the only people who actually "understand" the essay are you, Likebox, Brews ohare, and Michael C. Price - the people who authored it, and zealously revert out any contributions by other editors. The many other people who opposed it, failed it as a guideline, and resisted its spamming onto Talk: pages(see here), must all be stupid, I suppose. And the 29 people who !voted to delete the related Template here, versus you, Likebox, Michael C. Price, and Bduke who !voted to keep it, must be similarly impaired. Anyway, I specifically asked that you not comment, for precisely this reason. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that there are no POV issues on articles related to apparently long settled unambiguous scientific fact is unfortunately naive. Some people do not understand the science. Some people are exploring new approaches to the science. Some people believe the "long settled unambiguous scientific fact" is simply wrong, or incomplete, or inappropriate for children under the age of 18. The policies have to apply evenly all around, even in articles where they "should not" be a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right here. What Likebox and I mean is that the typical problem on such articles is usually of a different nature. Of course, there are also controversial scientific topics, but that is not what the essay addresses. Also you can have problems with cranks etc. But we already have policies to deal with those problems. The essay does not say that other Wiki policies do not apply. I now remember Jayjg saying to me that: "If the essay is not about editing disputes then what problem does this essay address?". And that right after I explained that in detail.

Anyway, when Likebox was put under restriction, I actually argued in favor of a 1RR restriction for Likebox, instead of the vaguely worded probation. Because now if Likebox acts in good faith and Jayjg is edit warring, Jayjg can come here, misrepresent the facts, point to Likbox's probation and bring in other irrelevant arguments so that it looks like Likebox is the bad guy yet again. In theory 1 RR could still mean that you can disruptively revert once per day, but I think in practice a sensible editor would see that this is futile. Count Iblis (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, the people currently edit-warring over the failed proposal appear to be Michael C Price and you.[30][31][32][33] Go figure. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only edited ESCA once today. I try to stick to 1 RR too. I gave a detailed explanation of my action on te talk page. I invited my opponents to make edits that explain in detail potential problems with the given points and how one can deal with that.

You also asked that I don't comment, but that is a non-starter at AN/I. You can, of course, request that others besides me, Likebox etc., take a look and comment. You want others to take an independent look that is not coloured by our POV. That's perfectly understandable. Now some others who we all know were not big supporters of the essay have already commented here, particularly the Anon who has complained several times about Likebox and Hans Adler. Then, having got those comments, you choose to reply to me instead of to them. I find that very strange. Count Iblis (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't comment here because it's a bit hard to get an overview of the situation. But now it appears that everybody else felt the same. I must say that what Count Iblis says seems to make a lot of sense. Among the editors working in a specific scientific field there tends to be a general consensus about things that may not be at all obvious to editors from outside that field. E.g. in WikiProject Mathematics, most questions that come up are resolved unanimously with regard to what is best for Wikipedia and its mathematics articles, and with little regard for what the policies say. That's the ideal state. If it worked like that everywhere, we wouldn't need policies.

Sometimes editors who are not experts in a certain science edit in that field anyway. Some are confrontational, and so it becomes necessary to follow standard wiki procedures. But some are editing in order to learn something about the subject, and are happy to learn from the experts: details of the subject itself, but also how people practising the subject approach their field and hence also Wikipedia. It may not be necessary, but I don't think it's totally wrong to write an essay for this situation that explains the scientific method as applied to Wikipedia. Hans Adler 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOT YET RESOLVED

Special:Contributions/70.121.37.111. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a brilliant idea. I wonder if there's a good way to limit it by location, gender, and orientation? It wouldn't help me to succeed in getting a date with a straight guy from Guam. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the all caps, but I thought someone should note that it was Chaser's page that was turned into an attack page by Special:Contributions/70.121.37.111 at 70.'s user page. In the circumstances, might it not be appropriate to oversight the edits of the now-blocked user? Bielle (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might help Jimmy with his revenue problem. Irvine22 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is displaying admin icons on their user and user talk pages. They have blanked my advice to remove the icons. I'm leaving notice of this post on their talk. Thanks Tiderolls 08:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked; obvious vandalism-only account. --Golbez (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: it looks like this is the same user as 70.121.37.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of the preceding section. DVdm (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Also blocked (48 hours). Probably the usual 13-year-old boy with too much time on his hands. Shame, because I wouldn't mind the blow-job he's offered twice [34] [35] but I don't want one enough to commit a felony. ➜❝Redvers❞ 10:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even funny. Consider a refactor, please. Durova³⁶² 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gross. Lara 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Redvers, that's warped, chummer. Refactor it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 03:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drip by drip, this place gets less and less enjoyable and more and more politically correct every day. ➜❝Redvers❞ 07:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, consider it another instance where you shouldn't feed the trolls. -- llywrch (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User has made these threats before, and been posted here RBI--SKATER ^Speak. 04:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reported at WP:SPI that Eggbaguette (talk · contribs) has made a potential suicide threat in the Sandbox. See this diff. Other editors have expressed concern on the user's talk page. I am reporting this here per WP:SUICIDE. Tckma (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has these recurring joke "suicide" messages on Wikipedia become "plea for help" messages? They should be like any other dubious claim made on Wikipedia: delete them unless they come with a proper citation such as a medical opinion about the state of mind of the poster, or a death certificate (and even with proper citations, delete them as non-notable). Meowy 15:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the same user who made a potential suicide threat in the sandbox on 8 Nov (see WP:ANI#Suicide threat (first)). The exact same wording was used - I would not count it as credible. Suitable advice was given on the user's talk page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as closed, he's made these threats before and I seriously doubt he's gonna do it.--SKATER ^Speak. 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as if he/she's playing a prank; however suicide threats should never be given the cavalier treatment as the person who is threatening to kill him/herself is somebody's child, sibling, parent, or friend, and they could be serious.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's the same wording because it's the same diff/revision ID. (I searched ANI for "suicide" to make sure I wasn't making a duplicate report, guess I fat-fingered it or Firefox is being wonky with text searches.) Tckma (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though at the end of the day the threat is most likely a prank, etc., I see absolutely nothing wrong with a standard practice of running a Checkuser inquiry and contacting the local authorities. It is perfectly consistent with Checkuser policy, which allows an inquiry to be made "where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public" - in this case, the safety of the person making the threat. And local authorities have repeatedly said they do not consider it a waste of time if we contact them regarding a threat. Either the threat turned out to be something real (either a an actual threat or a cry for help) - in which case contacting the authorities is the right thing to do. Or it turns out to be a prank, in which case the local authorities would still be interested, as they take these type of pranks seriously - in which case contacting the authorities is still the right thing to do (and will hopefully prevent that user who is making the prank from doing it again).

At the end of the day, as per WP:SUICIDE, we should take ALL threats seriously, and leave it for local authorities to make a final judgement call, not us - no matter whether we think the threat is real or an obvious prank. Singularity42 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The content of all these so-called "suicide threat" messages should be ignored, and they should be removed as off-topic as soon as they are noticed. Meowy 19:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your callous nature is somewhat disturbing. All suicide notes? I know at least one person who has previously made the attempt. Repeated threats are not a joke, they are often indicative of a longterm state of mind problem. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed? Yes. Ignored? No. GiantSnowman 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And like I said on the other thread, the essay WP:SUICIDE implores you to take such threats seriously. It does not describe a standard practice to use checkuser tools nor does it require editors to respond in a particular way. If you feel that any threat is a credible threat, then you may respond accordingly. Obviously you need to find an equally credulous checkuser to report IP information to what we presume are local authorities, but you are allowed to do that. Protonk (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SUICIDE policy should have two options: a) Do Nothing - don't revert, don't block, just ignore it b) Do Something - contact local authorities, talk to user. This would allow repeat suicide message posters to be blocked / banned. 87.114.7.38 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, User:Elonka placed User:Domer48 on probation with regards to the Troubles Arbitration Case. Domer has stated that he will not accept Elonka's actions (aided and abetted by at least one other user in the area, Vintagekits) and intends to continue editing like nothing happened. I urged him to bring this to ANI or AE rather then do this, but it's his decision, and thus forces my bringing this here myself.

Now the reason that I bring this here, instead of an ArbCom clarification, is two reasons, time wise. A) The sanction is only for 90 days, and by the time ArbCom can clarify if Elonka can place Domer under the probation, a good chunk of the probation will have already expired, and B) This has the chance to devolve very quickly. If Domer edits outside the terms of the probation and gets blocked, well, we have excessive drama.. and if Domer edits outside the terms of the probation and doesn't get blocked.. well we have excessive drama from the other side.

My personal opinion is that Elonka fits the definition of the ArbCom remedy as an uninvolved administrator. any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. (per the terms of the Troubles ArbCom). I do consider it valid (and note that Elonka did apply it to one of the other frequent targets in this area, from the other PoV, so it looks like she's not favoring one side or another), but again, this is my opinion, and Domer has decided to ignore my note as well..

Pre-emptive edit: For VK's continued hostility in the same discussion User talk:Domer48#Probation, I have blocked him 48 hours. I leave it open to review, but VK's taking a volatile situation and trying to see if he can light it on fire. SirFozzie (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VK is getting blocked so often these days he hardly has time to update his little counter! [36]. MickMacNee (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely its about time an indef block was considered for VK? His incivilities are too frequent, despite being warned/blocked about it so many times. He is obviously never going to learn. Jeni ^(talk) 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His user page states he is retired, & he's been blocked three times since he claims it took effect. As an uninvolved Admin (his name is familiar, but I don't remember having any interaction with him), I second Jeni's suggestion. -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that both Domer and Mooretwin, aware of the 1RR on the article, simply made sure their reverts were spaced at least 24 hours apart, and continued to edit war with each other [37]. Which is exactly what the ArbCom remedies were supposed to prevent. If editors game the system to evade general restrictions, there is little option but to add specific restrictions. When you consider how many fronts this same sort of problem editing is occurring on from some of the same editors, I can't really see any other option. Elonka fits the definition of the ArbCom remedy as an uninvolved administrator, therefore I see no basis to discount her probationary measure. I'd also note that this pattern is depressingly familiar. Every single time an uninvolved admin makes a sanction on one of them, the same invested group of editors claim bias and insist that admin is involved. It happened to me (Rockpocket (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)), to Tyrenius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), to Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)... Either the entire admin corps is involved in a grand Anti-Irish conspiracy or else we have to begin to see this tactic for what it is. Rockpocket 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer to persistent edit-warring in this area: Troubles topic bans. It has worked in other areas, I am already considering proposing this for the endless British Isles naming dispute edit-warring, and I see no reason why it would not work here either. Black Kite 18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Black Kite. Note that I am not uninvolved as have previously blocked Domer and have been accused of harrassing these partisans per RockPocket. Toddst1 (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with SirFozzie, Rockpocket and Black Kite. Elonka is perfectly neutral in this and has made a good-faith effort to enforce our norms. In a scenario that has become depressingly familiar, she has been greeted with abuse and accusations of bias. I'm afraid 'partisans' is the right term per Toddst. Sad. --John (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I, too, agree. I've not looked at the specific case, but a general topic ban would seem to be a reasonable approach to the problems indicated by the block logs of Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and some other regular participants in these disputes. Such a ban would need to be community-imposed, though, as the case remedies do not allow for it.  Sandstein  21:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree that it's high time action was taken against a number of editors who've learned to get around the current restrictions. Elonka's 90-day 1RR per week probation on Domer is a start. Rd232 ^talk 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for Troubles topic bans, starting here and now with Domer48 and Mooretwin, and hopefully ending there too. Not only are they perennial edit-warriors, they often seem to bring out the worst in other editors. The Socratic method may be fine for teaching face-to-face, but it really doesn't work so well on Wikipedia talk pages and especially not when Socrates is selectively deaf. Both of these editors have not hearing things down to a fine art.

The only concern I'd have with a broad topic ban is that the boundaries of the Troubles could conceivably be stretched to cover most Irish topics in the last two centuries or so along with no end of foreign ones. Dedicated edit-warriors could even find things in the realms of myth, pre-history and archaeology that need the Truth adding to them, just as they can in EE or A-A topics. I'm not sure what the answer would be here except that it would not be defining the topic narrowly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind backing up your allegations against me, specifically that I do not hear? Domer48 is a problem editor who is unwilling to collaborate with other editors. I have often been the only editor to have the patience to confront him. Yet because I am the only one doing this, I get punished - but if several editors confront him, then that is OK. There are several articles on Wikipedia where I have been faced with the choice either of leaving an article under Domer's ownership or reverting him. The former choice is not in the interests of the encyclopaedia. It seems to me that it is convenient to tar me with the same brush as Domer so that admins can say they are "treating both sides equally". I resent the implication that I am on anyone's "side". I am merely opposed to articles being written from a particular POV. The elephant in the room here is that there is a group of Irish-nationalist-inclined editors who have, over time, succeeded in inserting nationalist POV into Ireland-related articles. It is a logical fallacy to argue that someone seeking to redress this must be pushing the opposite POV. Mooretwin (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit unfair on Mooretwin. I have problems with his editing as he is aware, specifically the slow edit warring. But in talk page discussions Mooretwin is civil despite provocation, contributes constructively and is willing to compromise. Domer, as noted by several other editors in the past, is almost impossible to work with. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, Vintagekits has asked for an unblock, would a completely uninvolved administrator (if there's any left) review his edits on Domer's page and review his unblock request? SirFozzie (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just ban him, per this edit summary. This user celebrates his disruption and we are feeding him. I am tired of the abuse the AGF receives here. We try to be nice, form a community, and provide for dispute resolution and then we let users like this abuse the system and our good will. I propose a community pan on Vintagekits and then we can move on with our live.--Adam in MO Talk 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reviewed his unblock request, and declined it. Since he referred to the blocking admin's logic as "retarded" I think it's safe to say unblocking would be a mistake. I've never come across this user before, but I'm astounded that they have been blocked 31 times. It may indeed be time for a indef block/ban, but for now I am simply declining to undo the current block. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: He is now simultaneously saying he is once again retired, and asking to be unblocked again, based on some hair-splitting about what exactly is a personal attack. He's also refactoring the conversation on his page to remove references to this thread and explanations of why he was blocked. I'm done, good luck finding another uninvolved admin to look at this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't as done as I said I was because I still had his page watchlisted. After yet another declined unblock, I have revoked his talk page access for the remainder of the current block. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block Vintagekits indefinitely

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

Enough is enough, this user is never going to behave civilly. Usually at any hint of an indef block, he goes into retirement, then comes back as soon as the coast is clear, so lets have this discussion regardless. Someone above (as well as myself) proposed an indefinite block, so lets gauge peoples opinions.

• Support block this has gone on long enough. Jeni ^(talk) 01:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - That block log is ridiculous. How did he survive this long? Wknight94 ^talk 01:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was indeffed a couple times in the past, and it was tried to keep him in areas where he can edit productively. Also, a few folks decided that any indef block would be quickly socked around, as he did previously (look at the Troubles ArbCom for details of the 15-20 socks he ran through when indeffed last time).. so at least they could keep an eye on him under the VK account. SirFozzie (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, how do you know he isn't socking even now? HalfShadow (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie, I did not know about the 15-20 socks, now I am sure I don't want him around. Chillum 01:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VK, In response to the e-mail you just sent me I am not supporting your indef block because you used 15-20 socks in the past. I am supporting it because you are still abusing our trust even after all of this time. You will note I supported your block before I even knew about your past sock puppetry. This is not about your past, it is about an ongoing pattern of disruption that has no end in sight. Chillum 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VK Please stop sending me emails. I don't need to hear about how much I disgust you. Chillum 02:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Fear of socking is not a reason to keep unblocked. Otherwise, let's unblock User:General Tojo. Wknight94 ^talk 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he is socking now! I'd be very surprised if he wasn't! Jeni ^(talk) 01:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Halfshadow: If the Checkuser policy allowed preemptive checkusers, he would be one that I would request to be periodically monitored (especially since his socks multi-voted in an ArbCom election, for example).. unfortunately (or fortunately), the policy prohibits that type of activity, and I haven't seen anything in my return to the area that would make me think he was, so I have to assume that he's not, per AGF. And to the folks wondering how VK's lasted this long, I say this. He's been Houdini in his abilities to come back time and time again. By the way, I ask whatever administrator who will be lucky (unlucky?) enough to handle this.. please do not rush to judgement or close it early/snow, etcetera. Let's do this by the book, and not give any loopholes for folks to claim a rush to judgment or settling of scores, for example. If we're going to do it, do it properly. SirFozzie (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should be allowed to run its course. We should do this right and not stop the discussion before the Earth has even spun once. Chillum 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - enough is enough. Rockpocket 01:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not a net benefit to the project. --John (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 'Useful' to Wikipedia or not, when it gets to the point that he's literally taunting people about his block log, he's had far too much leeway. HalfShadow (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He's long since used up any leeway his constructive editing gave him. Time for him to take an extended break from the project. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 01:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Patience exhausted, how long has this been going on? Chillum 01:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support His block log is massive and the numerous unblocks per ANI discussions shows the community has tried numerous times to give him a second chance and he's failed miserably.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This editor's inability to play nicely and get along with others has been a frequently recurring theme here - he is most certainly not a net benefit to the project. 31 blocks clearly exhausts any inclination to give benefit of the doubt. Icing on the cake is the clear pride he seems to have in his block log, as demonstrated on his user page. Clearly has not learned from the past (other than how to game the system), ban long overdue. --Xdamr^talk 01:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Like most here, I have had my share of run ins with Vintagekits in the past, but when it was discussed 18 months ago whether or not to remove his permanent ban he sent me a very polite email faithfully promising to change his behaviour and only edit sporting articles in a calm manner. On the strength of this I supported his return to editing. As the saying goes, fool me once . . --Jackyd101 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with regrets. 15 or more socks and a history of indefinite blocks, as indicated above, is sufficient grounds, unfortunately. (They were at least matching socks, weren't they? I'm hoping it was an even number of socks too.) John Carter (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Vintagekits and Domer48 have both had multiple "last" chances. Time to end this waste of effort. Support indef'ing both. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per this diff. Anyone who can say that after 30-odd blocks has no interest in staying around.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Make that strong support, as I just received email informing me he was not at all surprised to see me "join the sharks".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This is why I only use my email address for identification purposes. HalfShadow 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ensuring his "retirement" is permanent. Rd232 ^talk 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose reopen While I understand the sentiment, I oppose the close, it's more wasted time. See my talk page for more. Block is already done. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to close this period. Just let it fade away with the countless other ANI threads. Chillum 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm absolutely torn on this one. My logical brain wants to support a ban, but I also know that when VK is good and puts his head down and works on boxing articles diligently, he can do well and is a great benefit to the project. I've known him for years and years on here now & on a personal note, don't want him to reach the end of the road. He's got a foul mouth and a wicked temper betimes and I've blocked him myself enough times (once leading to one of the biggest ArbCom cases evar!) but I know I don't want to see him go. *sigh* - this is a worthless non-ban rationale, I'm sure, but I really need to say it. As it is, the ban is pretty-much unanimous :( - Alison ^❤ 02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, in all due respect, come on. Just how many last chances does he get? He's been given more than one. Time to stop wasting everyone's time. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, I know. I'm just making a last stand here because I like the guy and because we've all been through the mill for years on here. I used to be his mentor at one time. I've been shouted and cursed at and accused of all sorts of bias, etc, but I'm still sorry to see him go. He's got a really good side when he keeps away from his hot-button articles (all Troubles ones, for example). He's not getting out of this one - I know this - but I just want to put in my word so he doesn't go down in flames as an unmitigated bad-lad, because he's not, y'know? - Alison ^❤ 02:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm another former-mentor of his. We don't particularly dislike him as a person, per se ... just not as an editor of Wikipedia. (Considering the fact that he's sending emails to at least three people blaming all and sundry for his block at the time frame it is across the pond, I would believe that VK is once again editing under the influence).. *sighs*. It's a necessary action, however. SirFozzie (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When two of his mentors admit he's finally done himself in, it should be obvious to all that he's bit the hand once too many times. Admit it folks, it's over for VK. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←)Wouldn't re-establish some sort of edit limitation for articles discussing The Troubles be more sensitive? I'm not familiar with his work or behavior in those articles, but when it comes to boxing his work has been first-class. Without him, the boxing project will lose one of a handful full-time users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's been tried and failed, several times. Take a look at his block log and other edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef of Vintagekits, who is an obvious detriment to Wikipedia; enough of nasty edits like this. I also support Elonka's topic ban of Domer48, if not a full indef of Domer48. Dreadstar ☥ 03:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Enough was enough 25 blocks ago.--Adam in MO Talk 04:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support since there are apparently calls for more nails in this coffin. He's sent me several emails loudly proclaiming his innocence in all this and blaming everything on "British sympathizing editors" which is something I don't believe I've ever been accused of before, being half Irish myself. Honestly, after 31 blocks what are the chances he'll suddenly stop being disruptive when he denies he's ever been disruptive in the first place? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ban I oppose the indefinite ban. reading this it seems that a lot of people are putting personal feelings of dislike in to this. VK is a good editor with a long record on the site. people will get into heading arguements about stuff they are passion it about. A lot of editors are overly sensitive and power hungry imoMbr1983 (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A similar section to this should be opened up for Domer48 - I could've/would've done it myself, but I'd rather someone else (who's more familiar with the troubles on "the Troubles") decide on exactly how they want to frame the sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ban I oppose the indefinite ban. I get the feeling there is a bit of a witch hunt going on by people VK has rubbed up the wrong way with a number of bad faith comments. As for the socking I wonder how many of them are actually him as I have been accused of being a sock of his before. The main area where I come into contact with VK is on boxing articles in which he is both a knowledgable and useful editor. As a Brit of Irish extraction I understand that issues relating to the troubles can be highly emmotive and I think issues arising from such topics should be dealt with by topic restrictions rather than outright bans. --LiamE (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not bad faith comments, its persistent and unrepentent personal attacks, both on and off wikipedia. I don't know about you, but I don't appreciate getting foul-mouthed, abusive, threatening emails. Would you like me to forward some of Vk's correspondance to you? How would a topic ban address this? As for the socking, there is no need to wonder, they were all confirmed by checkuser. Finally, why don't you check how many of his last 5 blocks would have been prevented by such a topic restriction? So do you have another solution that would actually address the issue? If not, why oppose a solution that clearly will. Rockpocket 06:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I think many of the comments above particularly with regards to people being sure he is currently socking look like expressions of bad faith to me. --LiamE (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninvolved editor here with a question of procedure as well as a couple of opinions worth a twopence. My apologies if I'm intruding.

Is this case an example of WP:BAN, section 2, bullet points 2 and/or 3? If so it would seem that VK's user and talk pages ought to have the template of ((banned)) instead of just ((indefblocked)), plus a listing on WP:list_of_banned_users. It's my opinion that an official ban would most succinctly summarize the near unanimous consensus here.

Additionally, IMHO, such a long history of misconduct and sockpuppetry would warrant action per WP:ABUSE. Has anyone considered this? WP:ABUSE would seem to be an effective way of dealing with this, particularly after what appears to be rampant usage of sockpuppetry to evade blocks. Also, ditto on the above paragraph wrt. the sockpuppet template.

Anyway, there's my two cents on the matter, just from watching the debris. Again, apologies if my response here is considered intrusive. I just saw the whole thing blow up and got curious.Shentino (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban as thoroughly uninvolved. Fellows behavior on my review is borderline sociopathic over a period of years, exactly the sort of person that drives editors away from the project who are more willing to play be the rules. Don't need to see any emails, long history of appaling behavior here was quite enough.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support from uninvolved. The latest outburst a few days ago, their laundry-list of blocks, and having a 'retired' note up on their page while continuing to edit all seem to point to a seriously dysfunctional personality. The 'uhh they might sock if we ban them' point is a nonissue: thats like saying 'well we better not fire Bob because he has a gun and might come shoot the place up'. Regardless of positive contributions in the past / ongoing, if a brand new editor walked in the door and displayed the fits of temper that Vintagekits have displayed over trivial trivial trivial things (a boxer's nickname?) we'd have shown them the door long before. Syrthiss (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose shenanigans. I don't personally have much of a concept of the Troubles conflicts, but I must protest at the timing and the impatience here. Just over an hour after a ban was proposed, Rlevse banned Vintagekits indefinitely. [38] Seven hours later, a ban template went up on Vintagekits' talkpage. [39] Editors in most timezones had no chance to weigh in on the ban at all. Come on, do we need to have a formal ANI rule that a minimum of 24 hours have to pass before a ban or block discussion is closed and implemented? Or can we go by common sense here, please? Bishonen | talk 13:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I am going to stick my head over the parapet now and say what I strongly suspect. Looking at the voting patern I suspect canvassing has been going on. Far too many votes in a short period and all of a like mind, and I hazard a guess all with prior with VK. After that point voting appears to be what one would normally expect in such a discussion. Now dont get me wrong those editors are entitled to their opinions on VK but canvassing on a ban discussion and trying to rush it through in the early hours is just not on. I propose that all votes made up to the point of Rlevse premature attempt at discussion closure be discounted and those editors take a step back from this for 24 hours whether or not they were themselves involved in canvassing. Now I know VK does himself no favours with continued breaches of WP:Civil but it seems to me that some people are now actually trying to read WP:Civil breaches as personal attacks in some cases an an attempt to make a minor incident taht could be difused with good humour into a bannable offense. Now I know this is going to go down like a lead balloon and tehre will be claims that no canvassing went on and proof will be asked for which i obviously cant provide but as it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck I will call it a duck, proof or not. --LiamE (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No canvassing here -- I have Domer's talk page watchlisted, so I saw VK's "stop acting like a fucking arsehole and get a grip of yourself you ego maniac", followed after a bit by Fozzie's comment that he had brought it up on ANI. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't canvassed or otherwise contacted about this, by anybody. Have never had any on or offline contact about this -- with anybody. Have AN/I watchlisted. Aside from starting the article on John Ging I don't think i've edited any ireland related article at all. For what it's worth, I'm an Irish American and am generally sympathetic to the Irish side of the troubles. My opinion is solely about behavior.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for taking that quote out of context and turning a WP:Civil breach into what looks like a WP:NPA brach to prove my above point. --LiamE (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Looks like"? You don't get to make personal attacks by claiming "oh, what he really meant to say was...".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In its original context the quote you gave above is certainly not a personal attack to my mind. Its not something I would write as it could so easily be taken out of context as you have proven, but there it is. If I were to write "You are an idiot if you think the world is flat" that would probably be a breach of WP:civil but it isnt a personal attack, if however you then just quote me as saying "You are an idiot" it would then look like a personal attack. You should be very careful about taking a quote out of context as you did above to suit your own ends. Yes it looks very bad out of context and it doesnt look great IN context but it does look better, it must be said. In context it doesnt read as a direct personnal attack to me.--LiamE (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. I suppose it comes down to how Elonka read it -- was it a gratuitous personal attack coatracking on Domer's comment, or a humorous explanation? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka clarified on her talk that she did consider this a personal attack, as the actual meaning of Domer's expression was more like "get a grip on yourself".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How on earth can anybody think being told to get a grip of themself or a situation is a personal attack? and a personal attack that warrents al this fuss. This spage gets dafter by the moment.  Giano  17:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody thinks that "being told to get a grip of themself" is a personal attack. Many think that being told to "stop acting like a fucking arsehole and get a grip of yourself you ego maniac" is a personal attack. You know this, Giano. I, more than anyone, know how much you have invested in keeping Vk around because you believe he is a rough diamond and you know there was plenty of editors on the "other side" who were as much of a problem, if not worse. But those editors have all been banned now. And the attacks from Vk are now coming in the business of editing sporting articles, and in drive-by comments on other disputes. When we were discussing the the repeal of his last ban, I distinctly remember you saying to me (perhaps by email, or maybe even onsite) that this was the absolute last chance and that you told him yourself: next time he launches that sort of bile at someone unprovoked you would be the first to support his banning. He was not provoked in this instance, he chose to comment on something that had nothing to do with him whatsoever. You are a man of your word, so please stop these desperate attempts to deflect attention from Vk, its below you. Rockpocket 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@LiamE: This is silly. It's ANI. Most or all admins have ANI watchlisted (unless they value their sanity). That's paranoid. Wknight94 ^talk 14:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly it may be - but I can hear the quacking. --LiamE (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who would watchlist WP:AN/I? It would always be at the top of one's list; they just read it on a regular basis. (If anything, I suspect most or all Admins are looking for ways to minimize their presence at this venue!) -- llywrch (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• support ...and that's about enough of that. Tan | 39 14:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Indefinite block/ban Arbitrators or Community need to ammend Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles to throw out all the chaff.Support extended ban for arsehole comment Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If you're going to unban prolific sockmasters who are just as, if not far more, abusive to other editors than Vintagekits has ever been such as Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), then an indef block of VK is a travesty of justice. Restrict him from commenting on disputes he's not involved in or something and keep him on a tight leash. 15:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Support, after consideration. Could have been handled better though. As to VK's editing, the bad outweighs the good. And that ratio has increased since he "retired". Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Enormous Block log, enough is enough.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and it's Good Morning Europe

• I am thinking long and hard about this; before coming to an opinion, I would like to see the emails he has sent you Rockpocket and Chillum and anyone else for that matter who has received one, before I make my mind up - we hear so much of his threats and abuse, I would like to see some of this "secret" emailed abuse (seeing as Rockpocket is offering to forward them). I don't doubt Rockpocket's word, but those with long memories will remember the plots and Arbcom case to get him banned a couple of years ago when the famous "death threat" email was found not to exist (as VK had protested) and the editor to who it was supposed to have been sent dissapeared off the face of the earth. One thing I have learnt from my dealings with VK is that he is as much a victim as those that fall foul of him - I do though find it rather concerning that Rlevse wanted to close the discussion and inefinate block inplace after only an hour and whilst most Europeans were in bed, is there a reason for this?  Giano  10:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ban; not sure if I should be voting here but no time to find out. It seems Vk has been blocked for explaining a phrase as he was asked to do! Sarah777 (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ban. I disgree with the banning of an editor who has put a lot of time and hard work into this project when newbies are often allowed a free hand in creating havoc here. Once again, I strongly oppose the ban.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. WP:NPA is a policy that everyone on Wikipedia should be following bar none, and putting in some good work on boxing articles (including one featured article) doesn't give us a licence to abuse anyone who happens to disagree with us. If he has indeed been sending out abusive emails, this is very serious, as are his frequent accusations of bad faith against pretty much anyone who disagrees with him. Just as others have stated above, enough is enough. Bettia (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The emails Vintagekits has sent me (claiming to be the oness sent) contain no abuse, I would like to compare them with those received.  Giano  10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badgering opposers is generally considered uncivil, whether it's on or off Wikipedia.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ban For giving an explanation come on, this stinks and we have an email situation again, what are the emails? BigDunc 11:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the most important issues here is that an American Arb tried to rush this through while Europe was asleep, especially as this concerns a very contravertial European editor (known to be closely associated with a very European subject) perhaps Rlevse thinks he is Hilary Clinton or Edward Kennedy - who knows?, but I do know he has behave deplorably in this unseemly haste to dispose of a popular European editor while Europe is asleep. This must NEVER happen again.  Giano  12:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look below↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓; he was not the only European editor they were after last night. Sarah777 (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to my request for copies of emails on this subject, I have received this from Vintagekits, I mailed back and asked for his permission to post it here - he agrees. It was sent to RLevse half an hour or so ago, perhaps when he get's out of bed, (as we have all been now for some hours) he will respond. I think VK makes a reasonable request and point:

"To RLevse: The discussion about my block is ongoing and as half of Europe has just woken up I think you should allow them the chance the have there say.

Can you a. please restored by block to the original 48hr b. unbar me from sending emails and c. unblock me from using my talk page.

You have left me utterly armless and legless in being able to defend myself against the allegations put.! From Vintagekits

Posted here by  Giano  12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• European support for this ban, on the basis that my limited administrative interactions with Vintagekits have always involved, on his part, nationalist editwarring, or general unpleasantness, or both.  Sandstein  13:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor makes a point of following my edits and disagreeing.  Giano  13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, the world doesn't always revolve around you. Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ban (pending ArbCom Request) This is not a Macedonia/Balkans nationalist matter; it is a matter regarding English speaking cultural differences - and whereas almost all of those involved in ethnic based article editing in non English speaking related articles can quickly be determined as being on one side or another, the bias' and interests of English speaking editors relating to conflicts in respect of anything regarding Ireland need to be carefully sifted and examined before decisions are made. No permanent ban or restriction should be emplaced unless there is a full Arbitration on the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at some of the so called "abusive" emails on which this banning rests, I agree with you entirely. Arbcom should be the court to decode if VK's alledged crimes deserve a life sentence, not a group acting under cover of darkness.  Giano  13:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ban doesn't rest on email, the ban rests on a 31 ("and counting")-block log. There doesn't need to be an arbitration to community-ban an editor who has a history of disruption and incivility. Given the current 21-5 (or thereabouts) support for a ban, there's no need for Arbcom to resolve things.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Feel free to sift through my history looking for bias. You won't find any. And never mind e-mails. If I have to page-down and hit a "next" button to see someone's entire block log, then the e-mail issue is just a distracting sideshow. Even his mentors above can't vouch for him - that's telling. Wknight94 ^talk 14:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Oh come on.. seriously! I can't believe people are actually suggesting that he isn't worthy of a ban, he is one of the most disruptive editors currently on Wikipedia (if not *the* most disruptive editor). He gets chance after chance after chance, and he always ends up back here. Its just his friends now coming here to ensure he doesn't get blocked. Hopefully whoever implements the final block will see common sense and ignore his mob. Jeni ^(talk) 15:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Giano's 'Good Morning Europe' header above was placed at H4 on an equal par with the indef section, which has resulted in opinions on the block continuing in both sections in parallel. I've switched it to H5 to make it clearer they are part of the same proposal, but I don't dare move the opinions into chronological order for fear of reprisals. MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per my second above. I don't care if he is a controversial editor: when I look at his user page (which is what most people assume is how a user wants to present her/himself to the rest of Wikipedia), I see a "Retired" template & a count of how many times VK has been blocked. If an editor is retired, then the editor is gone. And if not gone completely, at least not hanging around Wikipedia doing things which lead to being blocked. Lastly, one thing a constructive editor learns early on at Wikipedia is to stay away from the topics which are hot-button issues -- which is why I don't edit articles on contemporary US politics. So there is no reason to tolerate him any longer. -- llywrch (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This matter was handled very poorly handled by Elonka and others. Their refusal to get consensus is particularly troubling. This isn't the Wild West and we don't need rampaging admins engaging in unilateral enforcements in dark corners of the project. The lack of diffs is also distressing. A combination of Robocop and mob justice at work here. Hopefully the disruption it's causing will be a lesson to those acting improperly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see any evidence of Vk committing vandalism on articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well this isn't about vandalism, so your oppose is invalid. Jeni ^(talk) 17:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)I am pretty sure that vandalism is not the reason for the proposal, so if you don't want this opinion ignored, please adress the rather more obvious issues that people have with him. As a reminder, Jeni's rationale was: Enough is enough, this user is never going to behave civilly. Usually at any hint of an indef block, he goes into retirement, then comes back as soon as the coast is clear, so lets have this discussion regardless. MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, IMHO an editor who doesn't vandalize a page, shouldn't be indef banned. Thus my 'vote' is valid. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds like a really great idea for an official policy proposal...not MickMacNee (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban. This is precisely what happens when we give disruptive editors second, third, fourth, etc. chances—they become vested editors who feel entitled to continue to participate in this project despite their disruptive behaviour. For some reason we continue to forgive these editors, even when their disruption causes more effort to resolve compared to the positive work they do. The end result is still a net negative to this project! I would also dispute the suggestion that his boxing-related edits are beyond reproach. He doesn't seem to understand BLP policy well enough to stay out of trouble on boxer biographical articles (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive72#Audley Harrison, where his comments were none too civil either). During his previous ban a year ago, his Gueracuco (talk · contribs) sock made a cut&paste move (which any long-term editor ought to understand is incorrect), leading to this lovely exchange with an editor who reverted him. Vintagekits is an editor who thrives on disruption and actively seeks conflict. He is proud of his block log. Near the end of his last probation, he taunted his talkpage watchers with a countdown ("be VERY scared"), and hours after the probation ended immediately started rapidly renaming baronet articles, without prior collaborative discussion. Quite simply, he doesn't seem to understand how to work cooperatively with other people, no matter how much coaching and advice he gets. Do not be distracted by the FUD being thrown around, that this is an Anglo-Irish dispute or conspiracy. This is nothing more than a perpetually tendentious editor with whom the community has finally(?) lost all patience. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and deal with the socks as and when they appear. Vintagekits has made some good contributions, but these just aren't worth the price of the ongoing drama. I'm sure the void left by their absence will be filled soon enough by others who can hopefully function better in a collaborative environment; in fact, I'd argue that Vintagekits' departure will improve the atmosphere and positively encourage new contributors. EyeSerene^talk 18:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Enough is enough. Given that we're still here after everything that has been tried, I have very little confidence that there is any chance that his behaviour will improve. A ban at this stage should not be a surprise. How many absolutely final no-going-back last chances has he had? Five? Ten? Fifteen? VK has a history of disruption and all prior experience has shown that he will continue to disrupt unless prevented from doing so. As I say, enough is enough. Pfainuk talk 19:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - he's had his last chance. Multiple times, if I read the block log correctly.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 19:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Indef ban. Disruptive displeasant user with a serious chip on his shoulder that he's not able to take off when logging in to Wikipedia. A review of the block history indicates serious personal issues, violent in text attacks, editing whilst "under the influence" (read: pissed out of his head), random abuse, derogatory remarks through possibly stalking talk pages, POV pushing, edit warring et. al.. Bluntly not welcome. The internet is big - I suggest he takes his deep rooted personal issues elsewhere. Pedro :  Chat  21:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a ban. I find no merit in the lurid accusations of timing and what not. I'm not pleased that some late discussions about bans have come from contents of emails (come on, how many times does this have to happen?), but there have been more than enough second chances, block reviews, topic bans, etc. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban - Easy call. AlexiusHoratius 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban - After seeing his disruptions be called into question over and over, I would support finally instituting a permanent ban. And no, I wasn't canvassed. -- Atama頭 00:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours later

• ... and it's the early hours of Friday the 13th here in Europe. a.k.a. The placeholder header. MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment He goes a lot of good work. Like others in the topic area, he gets into a lot of trouble. We have he unfortunate situation where it seems one side of the POV war is also consistently the losing side of the Don't Break the Rules war. What we need, far more than deciding whether or not to ban Vintagekits or anyone else, is a strong infusion of fresh editors into the topic area. I have, like Alison and Fozzie above, a certain amount of affection for this lot, and a frustration with the situation at large. I have at this point, no recommendations, no inclinations, just my thoughts and my exhaustion. This isn't worth the energy and the suspicion that I see invested by the editors above this comment.--Tznkai (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that there is clear consensus for the indef block, is there an administrator out there willing to act on it? Jeni ^(talk) 04:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • VK is already blocked indef, so it's status quo for the moment, let's see how the discussion goes. SirFozzie (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I thought it had been restored to the 48 hours! No worries then! Jeni ^(talk) 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too thought Vk wasn't indef-blocked until the community decided. I thought he was blocked for 48hrs. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• it appears my original comment has disappeared, but I oppose continuing with an indefinite ban. for the reasons a stated previously. VK is an otherwise good editor, but things can get heated with regard to the troubles. seems harsh and unfairMbr1983 (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your oppose hasn't gone anywhere, its still up there, so I've struck your duplicate vote. MickMacNee (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, what seems unfair is that his being 'an otherwise good editor' constantly lets him back in the pool when practically anyone else anywhere would have long since been shown the door. I don't care if this guy is Jesus; fair is fair and enough is enough. HalfShadow 17:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. Hold on. Lets just take this line of reasoning and point out exactly whats wrong with it shall we? Wikipedia is not an exercise in equity or in so called fairness where we make sure that no one "gets away" with supposedly better treatment than others. Its dreadfully ironic you've invoked Jesus here, as he had some choice words on the subject. This is not about "fairness" where we ensure that somehow, everyone gets the exact same amount of mercy, accommodation or favor. We should not recoil in horror that somewhere, someone else is getting a so called undeserved advantage over us. I have little time for such impulses, and so should you. Vintagekits is either worth keeping around (and you can make a deterrence argument, but thats not about fairness either), or he isn't. That is the only line of analysis is truly topical.--Tznkai (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles

While we have eyes on this ANI thread, I wanted to bring up something else for discussion, the subject of authorizing administrator discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area. These sanctions are now routinely authorized in other nationalist topic areas, such as Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia, and so forth. However, they were never specifically authorized in the Troubles topic area, possibly because the Troubles case is such an old one (from 2007, when ArbCom didn't start routinely authorizing discretionary sanctions until 2008). This means that there is very little that administrators can do to reduce disruption in this topic area, other than enforcing 1RR or entirely blocking an editor from Wikipedia. However, if discretionary sanctions were authorized, uninvolved administrators could craft much more precisely targeted solutions, such as to simply remove a disruptive editor from one or more articles where they were causing problems. This would serve the project well, as with a discretionary sanction in place, a targeted editor would still be allowed and encouraged to edit constructively in other areas of the project.

The Troubles case has been amended before via community discussion, such as in October 2008[40] and October-November 2009.[41] Now, I'd like to propose one more amendment, as follows (this is mostly copy/paste from other discretionary sanction cases):

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to the Troubles ArbCom case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor.

Thoughts? --Elonka 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Wording of proposal slightly tweaked per comments below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Discretionary sanctions have worked well in other contentious areas. It should work fine in this one too. NW (Talk) 05:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we drop the "or normal editorial process" part? It's a problematic (and cloudy) expression. The most recently closed case adopted a "or decorum" provision instead. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds reasonable. I have no objection. --Elonka 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tweaked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support formally now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds good. Rockpocket 06:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --John (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A necessary tool for intractable disputes.   Will Beback  talk  08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support we need something without any question. However we have people gaming the 1RR system by making multiple different POV changes to different parts of an article that should be reverted, but given the 1RR restriction on an article as a whole any editor taking action risks sanction. We also have editors such as Irvine22 who are regularly banned for varying periods and then simply come back and start again, but move over many articles to do with the Troubles making POV edits, interspersed with reasonable or marginal ones. Any uninvolved admin, unaware of the total pattern of edits might interpret action against such editors on a single article as disruptive. We've also seen confusion over what is or is not a good faith edit with consequent issues over if reversion is legitimate, or if the edit should be amended for a compromise. Sorry to go on a bit, but for something to really work here the "uninvolved" admins are going to have to do some detective work rather than just react to an individual article and the need for that is not clear in the above draft. --Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Totally oppose - this merely extends the arbitrary powers of Admins who overwhelmingly come from one side of this "cultural" dispute. The wording is so vague it is a charter for the multitude of editors conditioned by Anglo-pov to impose their perspective even further on Irish editors. Sarah777 (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the other disputes mentioned there is a much greater likelihood that Anglosphere Admins won't be conditioned to a particular perspective. That is manifestly NOT the case in Irish v. Britain issues - across a swathe of subjects, not all "troubles-related". This is proven beyond argument, over and over. Sarah777 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah-Nothing else has worked, that is why this is being proposed. If the editors involved in The Trouble would behave in an appropriate manner things like this would not get proposed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: why has this outrageous proposal that will affect dozens of Irish editors not been notified to the people it will affect? Were it not for Vk's latest flip I'd have missed this entirely. Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and proposal. The method used in WP:ARBMAC2 worked really well. Macedonia is also a hotbed of ethnic warring. Ethnic wars are one of if not wiki's biggest problems. The time for stronger measures is long overdue. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem here is the complete absence of a neutral police force. The current situation is way more preferable from a WP:NPOV than the blanket imposition of Anglo-perspective on all Irish articles. The failure to define what a "troubles-related" article is guarantees that we will end up with all Irish-related articles classed as troubles related. You folk simply aren't thinking. This will be no Macedonia. Sarah777 (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So - who will notify the Irish editors who will be victims of this regime? And when? After the deed is done? Sarah777 (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And while I'm at it, given how the same group "debating" on my page ended up here so quickly (though there was no notification) can I assume that Vk wasn't the only one writing emails last night? Sarah777 (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, oppose for now. Additional powers (including initial page bans rising to topic bans) are needed, but deciding them here and now is rash. Firstly, the editors involved in the problem should be given the chance to be part of the solution. As Sarah says, no one has been notified. I'm not saying there should be a vote on the content or a three month long discussion on it, as we need the situation to improve now. But at least give editors the chance to comment and make suggestions. Also, as per Snowded I see no specific solution to the slow edit warring issue. I also have issue with these sanctions being left to "uninvolved" admins. We need input from involved admins who are familiar with the editing of VK, Domer, Irvine, Mooretwin, myself or any other editor involved. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should only support extra arbitrary powers for Admins if we are convinced the net result will be good for WP:NPOV. I'd suggest we'd get a better result in the end with yourself and Domer warring than we'd get from some of the Admins seeking god-like powers. Sarah777 (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A necessary tool for an intractable dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...which "intractable dispute" do you refer to? The proposers don't make that at all clear? Off2 - Do you regard Kilmichael as part of the troubles that occurred 50 years later? Sarah777 (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike all of the nationalistic issues that attract opposing sides and constant editing disputes. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, this is a rush job and involved editors have not received any notification, have to strongly disagree with Stu on the issue of involved admins, some are an integral part of the problem. BigDunc 12:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose pending proper and timely debate Things seem to be moving here with obscene and seemingly planned haste.  Giano  12:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - what exactly is the problem which this remedy is supposed to be addressing? We need a clear understanding and definition of what the problem is, before we can decide what the solution is. Mooretwin (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No surprise to see some of the usual suspects opposed here. Will Domer48 be along in a day or two to add his disapprobation to the list? Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas. Support of course. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would wish to amend working in the area of conflict to working in the area of conflict or the attempted bullying of those that do I personally have been bullied by both sides at differents stages in my Wikicareer. Bullying is a catch all term and we should all know it when we see it. Maybe a Wikilawyer will show VK was not directly insulting Elonka; maybe Elonka is a strong enough Character or has amassed sufficient mates to brush off attempts at bullying such as this, but many others (including myself) are not in this position. Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with the suggestion that any appeals of such sanctions should be handled as proposed in Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  13:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – This is an unacceptable "solution" given the events that are responsible for its proposal and continuing support vary in their placement by many in the timeline of history. Cloudy definitions and reactionary sympathetic (or is it systematic) endorsements abound here. Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia are all well outside the normal personal involvement of major chunks of the sysop corps. The Troubles are much "closer to home" and can't be handled in the same way. I endorse Sarah777's view in her "Totally oppose" statement. Statements from sysops such as "Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas" are inappropriate, inflammatory and unhelpful to say the very least. Sswonk (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per previous rationale. This is not a matter to be decided on a discretionary basis; the facts must be teased out from the rhetoric, prejudices and bias' disregarded, and only decisions made as dispassionately as is possible - with the widest consenus available - enacted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain this rationale in a bit more depth for someone otherwise uninvolved like myself? My understanding of this is seems to be quite a bit different. The first time I commented on anything related to troubles was a few days ago at an AE request and I noticed there were some flaws not just in some established users own understanding of the sanction scheme, but in the very nature of the sanction (which only specified blocks). Other than the problem of editors repeatedly engaging in problematic conduct in that area, what was also clear was that there was a woeful amount of input from the community (which negates the possibility of having a widest possible consensus). On that basis, I supported giving admins the discretion to let editors be subject to page or topic bans rather than outright blocks for the conduct issues in this area. Why should editors from either non-English or English speaking backgrounds be considered differently on this basic conduct issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My rationale is that this is not a matter where the discretion of an individual admin is going to be accepted by all or even a large majority of the English speaking editing community. Ever. The issues relating to anything relating to Ireland and its culture for the last 400 years is steeped in cultural, religious and political perceptions of the rights and wrongs of events within that history. Any discretionary (for which, read "unilateral") action by any admin is going to be lauded by certain interests and decried by others, depending on what "faction" is being sanctioned. The few truly independent admins will soon be reluctant to act, when their efforts will be viewed and commented upon within the microcosm of (anti)Irish nationalist sentiment. It is, regrettably, an area of such potential disharmony that only truly consensual decision making is going to provide the basis by which resolution will be of any effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the issue here is not comparable to Armenia/Azerbaijan or other ethno-religious conflicts. First, the Troubles are thankfully over and receding into history. Second, as Less Heard van U points out, this is a controversy between Anglophone editors for whom Freud might have coined the phrase "the narcisscissm of minor difference". I think the first thing that needs to de done here is to clearly define what is meant on Wikipedia by the Troubles and articles related to the Troubles. I would suggest that the Wikipedia article on the Troubles, which dates them from (if memory serves) 1969 to 1997 would be a good place to start. I would also suggest that every article that is determined as being related to the Troubles be tagged with the handy template Rd232 came out with a wee while ago. He's full of helpful ideas that fella. So he is.Irvine22 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • • The problem is that both sides of The Troubles have proven themselves incapable of solving the problem themselves, which is why we're here again. Any admin trying to help in The Troubles is viciously attacked by the "wronged" side, so most avoid The Troubles like the plaque. So it continually descends deeper into the abyss. Since they won't solve it themselves, and this applies to both sides, those few hardy enough to venture into The Troubles are about the only hope we have. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Rlevse; utterly fed up with the endless conflict in this area (generally from a very predictable set of editors). That they have taken this long to finally exhaust everyone else's patience is a credit to the tolerance of their peers, but it's long overdue that we do something to salvage this area and open it up to editors who can contribute without bringing along their baggage. To quote Antandrus's perceptive essay, "Every place on earth has nationalists; they are the dupes of demagogues, the tools of conquerors, and a great pestilence upon Wikipedia. Write a thousand good words on an important but neglected figure, and a nationalist will show up to argue over the spelling of his name; his birthplace, ancestry, ethnicity, or category; all in a tone of moral outrage. Look at the "bright" side: they keep our friends in the war industry employed. When some day earth is hidden in its final radioactive dust-shroud, their ghosts will declare: it's not so bad, they got what they deserved. Let the sane among you ignore them, and be good citizens of all of mankind, rather than just an angry splinter of it." EyeSerene^talk 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The ethnic/culture (pick your term of choice) wars are wiki's biggest long term problem. The Troubles is a prime example of that. Editors on both sides push their POV convinced that they are right due to centuries of ethnic/cultural conflict. Massive time and effort by many editors has not helped much in The Troubles. Business as usual will not help. Editors continuing the old conflict in the same old way will not help. Until editors on both sides of any of these disputes finally decide to change, nothing good will be accomplished. Until that time, stronger measures are needed to maintain an atmosphere on en wiki where editors can collaborate productively to improve the encyclopedia instead of constantly bickering at the other side and wasting other users' time and and effort in trying to solve intractable disputes because the editors on both sides of these disputes can't learn to get along and produce quality articles because they're more worried about their view not being "twisted". — Rlevse • Talk • 14:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose due to involved admins wording. We've already seen a grudge bearing admin issue a ban he had not authority to issue then abusively block the editor based on this non-existent ban, then he has the audacity to troll this noticeboard during this discussion. The idea that admins like that can issue draconian sanctions in future disputes on their own initiative is ridiculous. There's other involved admins who claim to be all neutral and above board and pretend to be guardians of neutrality and BLP, a laughable suggestion if ever I heard one. Would a guardian of neutrality and BLP claim someone who was in custody awaiting extradition is unemployed? Using that edit as a measuring stick, I presume Nelson Mandela was also "unemployed" for 27 years? There's too many admins who are way too involved with various editors in the underlying disputes, the idea that they have free rein to start using the knives they've been sharpening for a long time is a no-go. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of reliable sources, and mud slinging? Rockpocket 18:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, have you? Like the reliable source already cited in the article saying he was in custody awaiting extradition when you edited it to "sling mud" at a living person? Your edit speaks for itself, as do the actions of others mentioned. I note that you haven't attempted to do the impossible and defend your edit, and neither have you made any comment about "mud slinging" in reply to the comment made by Angus, which I posted a diff to so it's unlikely you can have missed it. Funny that isn't it? While the overwhelming majority of admins are trustworthy and neutral, there are select admins involved in the dispute who have significant history with certain editors, and the idea that those admins have access to such draconian and far reaching powers that can be employed against editors they clearly don't like isn't right. It's easy to see even right now that certain editors are being singled out while others get away with blue murder, or the admins singling out certain editors are not the ones taking actions against the others when needed. Take the editor you offered to advise (an offer which was accepted) for example. After that offer, he needlessly violated WP:BLP here (for those unfamiliar with the term see ambulance chaser, and it is in fact the third time BLP was violated) on an article you have been dealing with, and what was said? And amongst Irvine22's many POV edits, there's this one yet again on an article you've been dealing with, strange how you've said so little about it isn't it?

Just in case anyone thinks that is an Irish editor moaning about admins being biased against Irish editors, think again. I'm English and play it straight down the middle, and in fact was just responsible for the sockpuppet of an Irish editor being blocked and the currently outstanding request for Arbitration Enforcement against Irish editor Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs). Certain admins, by their actions of lack of them, are unfit to be issuing these draconian sanctions against certain editors on nothing more than their own initiative, it's that simple. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm English and play it straight down the middle. That is funny. Take the advice of your comrades and "cop on to yourself." If you have a problem with my editing, you know where to go, if you have a problem with my administrative work, then moaning about it here is pointless because its an utter straw man. You know how to sleuth for diffs (when they suit your agenda, of course), so why don't you check when the last time I did any admin work in this area? Address the issue at hand, instead of slinging mud in any and every other direction. Rockpocket 18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Please use dispute resolution like the rest of us and stop calling for martial law. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - provided enforcement will be enacted in the same way as other cases, specifically, at WP:AE. Dispute resolution has been tried for years, with little really effective results. Having said that, I would like this thread to remain open for at least some days, to allow the greatest range of opinions. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Such "discretionary" decisions can have a great impact on the direction of content. An editor comes in, doesn't like the content, an edit war ensues, the editor get "removed" and the content stays the same. The "discretionary" action resulted in the appearance of consensus and everyone editing the article is happy but the underlying content issue is not resolved. The problem is people's approach to editing (entrenched positions, suspicion, etc.) but we are here to write and encyclopedia that is balanced and informative. -rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Too many Irish-related articles have become POV battlefields and thier quality has suffered greviously as a result. It's simply not possible to develop an article when any changes contrary to a POV are immediately deleted by ideologically motivated users. The only way to deal with this is to let Admin's have some discretion as to what is good faith editing (attempting at least to be NPOV) and what is genuibne POV pushing. Let me further add, as an Irish editor that I have nver experienced anti-Irish bias from an Admin. In fact, one of the problems in this whole area is a lack nowadays of Irish Admins on WP. Jdorney (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I wonder why JD?! If they like what you say why would they be biased against you! Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of it is that the Admns have supported NPOV over partisanship. Users may check this if they want verification. Jdorney (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per current standard practice in other similar cases. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Good rationale by LHvU. This dispute is in too many people's DNA - unless we can get some admins from Mars, it's never going to have the appearance of unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 23:25, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
• Support The alternative is relying on an outdated reference to WP:Probation. If WP:AE is going to be forced to do his, we need as many tools as possible. You don't like it? Give us some community support.--Tznkai (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's probably the bottom line; if we as admins are expected to deal with this crap (and I accept that it is part of the job description), we want to know that we have the support and means to do so. I further think that some commenters are perhaps worrying far too much about the bias issue; more admin eyes on the situation will act to counter rather than reinforce bias, and we all know that no matter what happens and how much process we follow for the sake of propriety, we're still going to hear accusations of bias. It's just par for the course, but saying so doesn't make it so. Don't let's miss this opportunity because of analysis paralysis. EyeSerene^talk 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I'll be posting a report later. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa!

It seems some ban-supporting editors here don't realise that there isn't a even a "Wiki" consensus to impose any ban. Excluding warring editors who have been in dispute with Vk the vote is 50:50 by my count. The original block was a typical Fozzie bad block (I got one once, so I know). There is no consensus for the block, never mind a ban. Sarah777 (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discounting those who always come to VK's aid when he's in trouble it's about 90% in favor of a ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, don't you think you've done enough damage to the reputation of Arbcom already, without adding flippancy to the rap sheet? Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You took the words out of my mouth, but no doubt he will have me oversighted for saying it.  Giano  23:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "bad block" Sarah refers to was an indefinite block when she decided she didn't like a AFD result and went undoing the merge results for year articles, endorsed by the community when I brought it up at ANI at the time link to the archived discussion , and it was only lifted when you promised that she wouldn't do anything like that. So let's not pretend like Sarah didn't quite EARN that block due to her behavior. Besides, Sarah, what Rlevse is saying is absolutely true. SirFozzie (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of cobblers Fozzie. There had been NO process to delete 100 articles I had created; there was NO warning, NO discussion. You blundered in and blocked. It was one of the WORST blocks I've seen. Instead of apologizing you STILL justify your cretinous beheaviour. End of. Sarah777 (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... if you exclude editors that have been in dispute with VK, there isn't anyone left on WP to gather consensus from! Jeni ^(talk) 23:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, as I said, this crisis is triggered by yet another atrocious block by Fozzie. And there is clearly NO support for a ban if we remove involved editors from the dispute. (Not least Fozzie himself). Sarah777 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due process?

At 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) in response to a warning by Elonka on my page claiming the Kilmichael Ambush was "troubles related" I asked her to explain how. No reply. But at 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) this outrageous proposal pops up here without anyone being notified. It would, coincidentally, allow Elonka, Rock and John (all already involved in the dispute) to have unquestionable power to impose their perspective without any need to explain anything! Sarah777 (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And whatever about Vk posting under the influence and letting his true feeling hang out - we got an angry graphic display of where Rock is coming from when the calm surface is scratched. Not neutral, not even close. Sarah777 (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you provided links so we can all see what you are talking about. I would also be interested in seeing evidence (specifically diffs) backing your claim that these administrators support either side of this debate over the other.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of work there. In the meantime you could check my talkpage for a "debate" I had with Rock last night and tell me how the Kilmichael Ambush is a "troubles related" article. Anyone like to try? Sarah777 (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Yet again, there appears to be a disconnect between reality and your version of it. Nowhere during our "debate" did I claim that Kilmichael Ambush is a "troubles related" article (and if you think otherwise, a diff would be nice). Having recently edited the article, I would not be eligible to use this so-called administrative "unquestionable power" for that purpose (and, had you bothered to check before accusing, you would notice since I began editing related articles many months ago, I have not used any administrative tools for any purpose even remotely related to The Troubles). In fact, the discussion about "troubles related" articles to which you refer occurred between yourself and other editors in two different sections. I contributed to neither. But, you know, if you mention may name often enough, eventually - if only by sheer dumb luck - you may accuse me of something I actually did. Rockpocket 03:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I received a ban for unwittingly breaching 1RR on Easter Rising which it was claimed is Troubles-related, even though it happened over 50 years before the Troubles. Mooretwin (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under this proposal you could get a block for making a comment relating to the last Ice Age if some random Admin declares it "troubles related". No explanation need be supplied. Sarah777 (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That has always been the case, as I found out at Easter Rising. Mooretwin (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that all I saw on your talk page was you gloating over an ambush that killed 17 people 90 odd years ago. I think the part of the Request for arbitration you want is the section that reads "To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator." (emphasis mine). It seems to suggest that the uninvolved administrator is able to decide which articles are considered related to this topic, although the wording does provide loopholes if one chooses to see them. --Jackyd101 (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that was all you saw then I doubt your contribution here is going to be very helpful. Tends to reinforce my point about the problem with Angloshhere editors in this area. Sarah777 (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This and this speak for themselves. It's never a question of whether the article concerns the Troubles but only whether the dispute does. Diarmait na nGall could be a Troubles article, if edited the right (wrong) way, so too could Edward Bruce, Henry II of England, cruthin, Togail Bruidne Dá Derga or Cath Maige Tuired to name but a few. I suppose we should be grateful that the Troubles disputes on Wikipedia haven't (yet) plumbed the depths that some others have reached. But "not as bad as the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute" is not much to crow about. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I see there is Rock edit-warring (apparently with impunity on articles that Elonka says are 1RR). But then I guess on Armenia-Azerbaijan we didn't have 95% of the Wiki editors Armenians. And 95% of the Admins policing the dispute also Armenians. Unlike Ireland which is dictated by British or American editors with a skewed view of history. As proven, again, by Rock's comments last night and Jackyd inability to see half the text. Slam-dunk. Sarah777 (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking unfair comment about Rock edit warring; leaving what I believe are accurate comments about the partial reading of the exchange by Jack. And Jack, you are a wee bit confused; this part isn't about Vk and his language; this is about giving random Admins excessive power. You really should read stuff more carefully. Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are correct, but nationality still has nothing to do with it - its about creating a stable platform for everyone to edit, which currently doesn't exist in this area of the encyclopedia. The discussion about the talk page is really irrelevant to the main issue here, although I do find your attitude there regarding good guys and bad guys reprehensible from someone who claims to be such an ardent supporter of NPOV.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slam dunk nothing. This is not about race or nationality, it is about showing basic civility to fellow editors whoever they are, something Vintagekits has failed to demonstrate ad nauseum.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have posted links to the Discretionary Sanctions discussion from the talkpage of the Troubles case, WT:RFAR, and in one of the Troubles-related threads at WP:AE. --Elonka 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, are they not all troubles-related threads at WP:AE???? Sarah777 (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No ban in effect at this time

• There is a strong appearance of selection bias in the initial comments on this thread. Before we assume canvassing, it is possible that the editors who were first to comment were those who had certain user talk pages on their watchlists. I recommend taking this matter to arbitration immediately. There is no ban in effect; I removed the improper template. Multiple administrators have opposed. The block remains as set, though I do not understand why the user is not allowed to email or edit their own talk page. This thread once again highlights the need for a better venue to decide community bans. They should be done thoughtfully with sufficient time given to accept representative comments. This would avoid the pile on by supporters of one particular view. Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind talk pages ---- most admins - like myself - have ANI on their watchlist. Canvassing is an absurd accusation. Wknight94 ^talk 14:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind several of the opposers are Irish. Sarah even questions herself voting here. two of his mentors even support the ban or seriously question him staying on. 14:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)

• What impertinent rubbish you talk RLevse, I for one don't have the lightest drop of Irish blood.  Giano  15:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the least bit Irish, and I don't remember Lessheard vanU ever making trouble with The Troubles either. WP:BAN says a community ban happens when no administrator objects. If we count Bishonen too, who probably isn't Irish, and Alison, who is definitely Irish-sounding and -appearing, that makes four administrators opposed to the ban. I think we need to have a discussion about what to do with Vintagekits. But I think if we are going to do that we also need to look at the people in conflict with Vintagekits. It's hard to have a fight unless there are at least two parties. It is not fair to ban one side for bad behavior and not look at the behavior of the other side too. I think we should at least listen to Vintagekits side of the story. (Full disclosure, two of my boys are red heads.) Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I said, I said several, not all, are Irish, and that is fact. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very interested in race, RLevse?  Giano  16:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, Jehochman.

The community, through consensus, may impose various types of sanctions upon editors who have exhausted the community's patience:

• If a user has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion at a relevant noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard so that the user may be site banned, topic banned, or subject to an editing restriction upon a consensus of users who are not involved in the underlying dispute. When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments.

The part you're referring to says that if no admin overturns an indef block, it's a de facto community ban. If the community at large specifically imposes it, it's valid, even if some admins oppose.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jehochman, all that is required for a community ban is a community consensus as with any other restriction - what you talk about is a de-facto community ban, and unfortunately, it is not the same thing. I have no view on Vintagekits conduct in particular which is why I haven't voted on that discussion, but the reason I'm noting this is so that both types are not confused as one and the same; experienced admin should take greater care to avoid misrepresenting both policy and practice as it currently exists. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion is ongoing. There is no statement by a closing administrator yet, so there is no ban. If no administrator had objected and this were a quiet discussion, theoretically, a ban would be effective. Jehochman ^Talk 15:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, but when making a section like this, care must be taken to ensure that emphasis is on the de facto bit because that is the only outcome that is certain. Users may misinterpret this as indirectly closing that proposal off as no community consensus and starting off with the other one below, rather than as one that suggests the discussion is still ongoing. Of course, in contrast, a comment on the user's talk page could be misconstrued as the community consensus as already being enacted, even though discussion is actually ongoing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying there "is no ban" is a bit like looking at a zebra and saying "there is no such animal". The current consensus is in favor of the ban and he is blocked indef with a ban template on his page. Perhaps consensus will change later, but until/if it happens then yes, there is a ban. ^Chillum 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ban, Chillum because what we had was a group of mostly Americans ganging up on anm Irishman while most of Europe was asleep. Maybe VK should be banned, maybe not, I have yet to exppress an opinion. However this bullying was highly suspicious, that so many arrived so quickly with no dissent. That Rlevse was so quick to impose a ban proves him at best unfit to be an Arb, he should have at least srealise how things would appear when Europe, no to mention Ireland, woke up. We expect "Randy from Boisse" may act in a small minded way like this - an Arb should not.  Giano  15:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the funniest thing I have ever heard! "a group of mostly Americans ganging up on an Irishman while most of Europe was asleep" If you look at the userpages of the first few people that made comments, there is a good mixture, including England, Scotland, Canada and very few Americans. Then again, anyone that dares oppose anything Irish is automatically accused of having bias etc! Heard it all before and not interested! Check your facts Giano. Jeni ^(talk) 17:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I do apologise, when I was at school Canada was part of North America, I had no idea it had drifted off into the ocean. Many other editors had Category: USA or USA citizen or whatever on their user pages, I asumed that meant they were proud to be American - never mind an easy mistake.  Giano  17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that nationalities are automatically invoked when discussing these issues (typically in a kneejerk manner, based on prejudice rather than a firm understanding of the nationalities of the people involved)? Also, you found this discussion pretty quickly this morning. Its funny how only those who support Vk's ban are accused of canvassing, while the rest obviously just spotted it on their watchlist. Rockpocket 18:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian = American is about as accurate as Irish = English, Gio. Not that any of this is relevant to anyone but those with a severe persecution complex ongoing. Resolute 01:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've no idea why Rlevse decided to call it a ban rather than an indef block, (any dissenting admins please feel free to overturn it on the basis of being a block not a ban, but on current evidence that move would only end up in one place anyway), but for Jehochman to claim they saw no reason why VK's talk page was protected and email disabled, is odd to say the least. Suffice to say the evidence for why was in the permanent record of the talk page's history. Nobody should ever trust the 'as is' version of VK's page to determine what actually happened, especially not when, as now, he has had his talk page privelages restored, and is free to refactor it as he likes, which he does often. Also, suggesting the measures taken to remove his privelages meant he had no way to defend himself, after two already declined unblock requests no less, is utter nonsense, per the appeals policy. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's been undone, so the point is moot. What I meant was quite simply, after preventing a user from editing their talk page, it makes sense to summarize the reason there. Otherwise, it is odd to hold a discussion about somebody and not give them a chance to respond (such as by posting a statement to their own talk page). "There's no need to heard from the defendant because they are guilty as sin" is not how we should approach things. Jehochman ^Talk 17:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So your only justification for all of these comments is that nobody had bothered to outline for you here why his talk page and email were disabled, and you couldn't be bothered to take the few minutes to investigate for yourself? That's pretty weak tbh. As already pointed out, he had his chances to respond using the privelages of talk page access and email, and after their protection, he still has an avenue open to him to post an appeal. Your characterisation of what actually happened regarding his 'right to a defence' (and since when was ANI a courtroom btw?) is not accurate at all. MickMacNee (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposal

How about Vintagekits is explicitly allowed to edit boxing-related articles, but is otherwise topic banned from The Troubles for some period of time. That would allow them to do what is most helpful to Wikipedia, while hopefully keeping them away from further Troubles trouble. Thoughts? Jehochman ^Talk 15:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - Its just another way for him to worm his way back in. The indef block is for the best. And consensus is pretty clear in the ban section above that a ban is what the community wants. Jeni ^(talk) 15:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(@ Jehochman) Yes, because he conducts himself so much better when he is discussing boxing articles. Syrthiss (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was he causing trouble, or was he being hounded by traditional content opponents? I am not able to tell by looking at that thread. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about nicknames in boxing articles is just that, a discusion. It has been opened up to get the views on people from a WP:BLP perspective as well as the boxing perspective. As far as I know there has been exactly zero bad behaviour in that discusion. The fact is Audley Harrison does indeed have some negative nicknames which are well used by press and public alike and some editors object to the article/infobox including negative nicknames while others think they should be included so as to maintain a NPOV. As I have said before I know VK gets in to plenty of WP:Civil scrapes some of which are blown up to become WP:NPA breaches and perhaps some where actual WP:NPA breaches but the fact remains where I have come into contact with him.... on boxing articles in the main... he is very knowledgable and useful editor. --LiamE (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of users have noted that they supported a site ban due to the block log - why would they consider this proposal better? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echo chamber. "He's been blocked before, so he must have done wrong" is a poor argument. We need to look at the conduct and see why he has been blocked so many times. Has he been damaging articles? Has there ever been an RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vintagekits, to document the evidence of wrongdoing? Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a poor argument at all. It's called interminable disruption. If you'd like to build a case against a ban, go ahead, but you're not offering anything to refute the ridiculous block log other than hypotheses of baiting and so forth. Clearly there has been no RFC because his "disputes" are so blatant as to get him immediately blocked. There is no Wikipedia:Requests for comment/General Tojo either. Wknight94 ^talk 15:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • • • • [Redacted] LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC) (Actually, it was an excellent example of how real world history and WP invested viewpoints can cause problems. Anyhoo, personal apology winging its way to Wknight94 - thank you for the quick responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
              • Oh. No, no, no - I was referring to long-banned vandal General Tojo (talk · contribs) with his hundreds of socks. Sorry for the confusion. Wknight94 ^talk 21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • (edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/General Tojo. I am sure no reference to the historical General Tojo was intended. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Correct. The point being that RFC's are often for people on the borderline. People over the borderline - who are simply blocked because they are so clearly in the wrong - don't get RFCs. They just get shown the door. Wknight94 ^talk 21:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still on the fence technically so the above answer is more definitive than the possibilities I was going to provide:

1. A block log consisting of over 50 entries that demonstrates repeated conduct problems over the duration of 3 years (particularly relating to being uncivil and disruptive editing) may be the documentation of wrongdoing such users are using?
2. Perhaps those users also think that it is a timesink to go through all that if his contributions are not helping the editing environment to the point he is being blocked for the same conduct over and over, despite knowing it is inappropriate?
3. Going back to an RfC/U may appear as a mockery to dispute resolution, given that attempts were made to deal with some part of the conduct via arbitration - the final resort?
4. People don't tend to want to go backwards? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When a single user has behaved badly, an RFC is a logical step. I'm not sure why that was not done before. There is an appearance of intense lobbying by content opponents for blocks, rather than actual good faith dispute resolution. That makes me uneasy about enacting a ban. Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This proposal reminds me of the time VK edit warred on a boxers' article over his nationality, using as a supporting reference, the colour of shorts he wears. You don't heve to be Einstein to guess what the colours were, or the words he used to describe the people opposing him in the 'dispute'. MickMacNee (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jehochman's proposal.  Giano  15:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Its been tried before: User:Vintagekits/terms.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jackyd. Tried before and failed. VK has been given multiple chances and there is nothing to show he truly wants to reform. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until Rlevse's suspicious behaviour has been investigated he should be recused (or banned) from all comment on VK and The Troubles.  Giano  15:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're being sarcastic. Rlevse is not corrupt. He does, however, have a green signature, as do you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. While the support of his friends is admirable, they would be better off working with VK to reform his own attitude than to try and invent ways for him to weasel out of a ban that he is on the edge of bringing upon himself. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 15:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Would have been a good suggestion 2 years ago. At this stage there is no confidence here that such a measure would alleviate Vintagekits' deep-seated behavioral and attitudinal unsuitability for this project. --John (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a point that things may have been allowed to go on too long without remedy. There should have been an RFC at an earlier stage, and perhaps better protection from baiting. I am uneasy about this discussion because we aren't even giving Vintagekits a chance to defend themselves. That does not seem fair. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then unblock him temporarily, per Wikipedia:BLOCK#Temporary_circumstances_unblocks. Rd232 ^talk 16:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, silencing VK from defending himself was decided by a roup of mostly Americans and Rlevse during the night.  Giano  16:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was the intention of Rlevse, though it was the practical effect. We should let Vintagekits post a response to their talk page which can be copied into the section below. Jehochman ^Talk 16:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes, the classic persecution complex defence... Resolute 17:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been tried before without success. The problem is not VK's politics. It's that his default mentality, upon encountering dispute, is to edit war. Ban away: after umpteen million last chances, it's clear we're wasting our time. Moreschi (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi! Aren't you the chap who wrote an essay calling for the banning of anyone who opposes Anglo-American nationalism? Sarah777 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really a response to that, is there? Such a closed mindset is clearly not open to rationality of any type. It's rather sad and all too common. Moreschi (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay, but can we give the guy a chance to post a response? Jehochman ^Talk 17:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Didn't work last time, why would it work this time? Moreover, the last 5+ blocks wold not have been prevented by such proposal, so how would it solve the problem? Rockpocket 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Óppose' as the phrasing leaves the matter of potentially troubles-related boxing articles in limbo. I don't know if there are any myself, but I would expect a partisant to find some if they exist. Would not have objections to allowing the editor to construct such boxing articles in userspace and have someone else, preferably an admin but possibly a respected longtime editor, move the new content from them into mainspace if they are found to be without problems. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is a "troubles-related" boxing article? This is getting bizarre. Sarah777 (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, with your own comments, such as the one in which you accuse Moreschi of wanting to ban anyone who disagrees with him, it may even be crossing the line into unacceptable. I urge you to confine your comments to the relevant subject, and refrain from unsubstantiated allegations and insinuations regarding others. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read his paean of praise for Anglo-American pov? Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair cop. Neutrality, rationality, and the culture of sanity that I have always urged must all be clearly exclusive to Anglo-American culture I am so eager to push the POV of. What can I say? Guilty as charged. Moreschi (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Jehochmans proposal. Allow Vk to edit boxing related articles, and be robust in sanctioning any displays of temper or intemperate language - these are not "cool down" blocks but the removal of disruption from content disputes. Vk may or may not learn to curb the excesses, and thereby his continued participation in content building. I would only be happy to allow Vk to participate in Ireland related articles once there is an indication that he is able to participate non disruptively in other article space (and even then there may be consideration given to participation in Troubles related article space), and as such would not provide a specific time limit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is interesting, LessHeard vanU, is that your proposal was almost exactly the terms under which we agreed he returns from his last indef block. What happened then? He skirted the boundaries of what might be considered "Ireland related" (for example, participating in disputes over British/Irish boxer's nationalities and flags, and being typically incivil and aggressive), but more or less kept his nose clean enough. Once the terms of the ban got close to expiration, he began counting down (literally) the days until the restriction was lifted with threats of disruption. The day the ban was lifted, he immediately got stuck into exactly the same problematic editing that the ban was intended to prevent. My question is, when a very lengthy topic ban and civility parole is not sufficient for an editor to appreciate what is and is not acceptable behaviour, and instead positively anticipate the minute he can return to the same behaviour, why should we bother? Its clear any temporary restriction on topic or civility will simply be tolerated until it expires, the answer is surely that we stop it from expiring. Rockpocket 23:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, I was very concerned about the countdown and the immediate resumption of previous inappropriate editing stances - I think I supported sanctions then in the discussion. So, it seemed that the ban worked reasonably enough and thus my suggestion that any expiry of a fresh ban would depend on Vk maintaining a respectful dialogue with other editors may indeed be the way to keep a good editor of boxing/sport articles who creates disruption within certain national/political areas contributing usefully (if that is agreeable to all concerned). This is why I am a great fan of the indefinite tariff - it is so flexible in its effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just ignoring the fact that even in boxing and football topic areas, in the last few months he has been as abusive and combative as he has ever been in Troubles topics. He practically told the entire football project to go fuck themselves, as they were all in it together as one giant anti-Irish cabal. And as ever, he skipped and hopped through all the subsequent warnings and blocks with aplomb. I think he maybe apologised once. Its laughable he tries to brush off his behaviour as just some quirk of cultural upbringing, that people should just ignore. Not that it should even be contemplated this far down road, but if we are to go down the 'lets see if VK can be a good contributor' route, I would suggest the only feasible starting point would be to topic ban him for at least 6 months from anything even remotely Irish related, and see how he got on with other people. I somehow think he would just leave, but as ever, anybody who wants to take on the job of watching him everyday as mentor under those conditions, go for it. Are you up for the job LHvU?. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Proposal has been tried before. Civility and temper issues have persisted over three years. That's not going to change. VK's latest escapades were involving a British boxer (and a derogatory nickname which was given to him) which spawned three or four ani sections and a bunch of ill-will. As I said, an indefinite (as in permanent) block is not a step that I personally LIKE to see, but it is necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fozzie, it should be obvious, even to you at this stage, that there is almost no support for your vindictive position from uninvolved editors. Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of avoiding personal attacks, all I will say is that you must be reading a different conversation on a site other then Wikipedia, because other then the usual partisans (and some other folks, like LHvU), there is not much support for anything short of a full indefblock/"Coommunity ban" SirFozzie (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I'm reading this right here. Glad to see you are avoiding personal attacks. Sarah777 (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All editors: please consider moving your comments from the discussion above to the appropriate area below depending on whether you are involved or uninvolved in The Troubles content disputes. That will make it a lot easier for the closing admin to draw a conclusion to this discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved editors

• Support per LessHeard vanU. BigDunc 13:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per LessHeard vanU.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editors

• Oppose this proposal, per my statement above supporting a permanent ban. We've already tried this tactic before, and we end up right back where we started. Participation in this project is voluntary, and as such, we have a culture that fosters and encourages collaborative work. We should not have to go to extraordinary measures in order to accomodate editors who have consistently demonstrated an inability to work within those community standards. I'm ok with the idea of a second chance, but we're long past that point. Vintagekits has used up the last of his nine lives on this project. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• For god sake! Stop trying to skew the vote. Its plainly obvious that there is no consensus for this, yet there is consensus for the indef block. Perhaps its time this was all now marked as resolved and we move on, with one less trouble maker in our ranks. Jeni ^(talk) 19:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - though obviously there isn't any valid support for any ban. Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Vintagekits (awaited)

I request that this discussion not be closed until Vintagekits is given the chance to post a statement in response to the concerns raised in this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is already able to edit his talk page again, and has already made numerous comments. If you want a specific statement recorded here, can you please expedite it? As above, I stongly suggest you do not allow a simple tranclusion of his talk page, due to his penchant for refactoring it. Either he can post by proxy, or be temp unblocked, or some other method I don't know about yet, but as it is, this section is just hanging at the moment - thus I've added 'awaited' to the header in the mean time. MickMacNee (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits, could you post an official statement, and we'll copy it here for you? Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved administrator, I support VK making a statement and it being included here for discussion prior to closing. There's no reason for excessive haste, with the current block there's no damage being done at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone created a "proxy editing for banned users" essay, which allowed trusted known editors to add content (and not add personal attacks) from community banned editors it seems you'd have very many fewer of these revolving door ANI discussions. 87.114.7.38 (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean like a page where banned users could (anonymously, perhaps) post proposals for content edits, and if a few people agreed they were good ideas, they could be used? Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Very Bad Idea. Users who are actually banned have been told by the community that their input is not wanted. They've been shown the door and told not to come back. Giving them a "back door" to circumvent that decision would only encourage more disruptive behavior. See Template:Bannedmeansbanned, that puts it very nicely. Pardon my bluntness, but one wonders about the intentions of an ip user whose only edits are to ANI, and who wishes better advocacy for banned users. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I do not put the slightest amount of value into IP contributions in policy pages. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Thewtfchronicles#CS_Independance_of_the_Seas_.28sic.29. Please note that the user has removed my blocking template (I did add one).[42] Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Unresolved

 – Awaiting uninvolved input

Resolved

 – User blocked by Golbez for disruption, talk page privileges revoked by Mjroots. Should he continue after the block, report to Golbez, Mjroots or to me for indef.  Sandstein  13:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]