I am having trouble with an editor that is consistently making accusations against me, and turning a talk page into a soapbox rather than discussing the article in question. This is further amplified by the fact that they are now taking it upon themselves to close discussions of mine rather than addressing them.[1] This user is not contributing anything or discussing anything, just making fly-by-edits and accusing me of verbal abuse (which though I will not admit verbal abuse, I will admit I am becoming extremely frustrated with this editor).

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

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

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

Verbal has on occasions twisted my words, accusing me repeatedly of verbally abusing editors,[2] and of owning the page,[3] to which he has yet to provide a diff for at my request.[4] (In fact, his response to this request was to threaten me again with being blocked.[5]

I was not aware that consensus was formed by linking to the hive mind, but I have seen little to no discussion, and no answers to the points I have brought up. After the editor in question reverted back and forth with me he quickly reported me for 3RR (Which though I admit I reverted 3 times, I was restoring to a version that had actually been discussed and had consensus (Essentially any version prior to October 20th) I have made attempts to be civil,[6][7] often getting a response that shows the editor didn't even read my message[8], or more accusations and what I would interpret as benevolent threat[9]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you look at the sequence of events, you will see that Floydian was involved in a cooperative discussion of trying to solve one of the ongoing causes of problems in the article in this section: Talk:Colloidal_silver#proposal to end the constant reverting caused by the conflicting interpretation of "colloidal silver". It was during this discussion that Verbal made 3 reverts on the article with absolutely no discussion of those reverts: [10][11][12]. Verbal's first post on the talk page was here, AFTER Floydian called him on the reverting. Verbal's next post was after Master of Puppets posted to stop edit warring. Verbal's post was to deny any culpability in the edit war, and to complain about the disruptive contributing editors, mainly Floydian. If you look at Verbal's total contributions to this article, they are all reverts., [13]. The 2 reverts on October 22 are almost exactly 24 hours after Verbals 2 reverts on the 21. After Master of Puppet's post about discussing changes, Verbal made a couple of posts commenting about his "reverts", but most of his posts on the talk page are complaints about Floydian and threats about how Floydian will be blocked. I would call Verbal's behavior disruptive, and certainly not conducive to trying to reach any kind of consensus. stmrlbs|talk 05:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will only point to a peer reviewed source that describes adverse reactions to silver (including colloidal) in detail. You'll find it never once states argyria is anything more than a irreversible pigmentation of the skin.[14]. However, the changes to the article are less important than the conduct of everyone around it, myself included (I'm no angel).

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

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

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

Timeline: conduct problems

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

• On 21 Oct, Eubulides (talk · contribs) made a series of bold edits [15] [16] between 8:20 and 8:30. He noted that it was in response to a suggestion made about 1 day earlier on the talk page. Floydian (talk · contribs) reverted these between 16:31 and 16:36. This was permissible in accordance with WP:BRD; Floydian also commented which should have started the discussion. 10 minutes later, Verbal (talk · contribs) instead of attempting to seek a consensus by commenting at that discussion, broke WP:BRD and reverted. This was highly inappropriate; at that point, even the NPOVN discussion only had 2 editors responses that had differing views to Floydian. Floydian reverted and made an aggressive comment at the discussion directed at Verbal.
• It was after this revert that the third editor commented at the NPOVN discussion, after which Verbal reverted again (again, avoidable) and endorsed as the forth editor. However, Floydian should have considered avoiding any further reverts at this point as it was potentially inappropriate, but nevertheless, did revert. Verbal then made a response at the discussion, to which Floydian responded 10 minutes later. No responses were made at the discussion after this time. Shortly afterwards, Master of Puppets (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) appropriately made a general warning to stop this cycle, and discuss it on the talk page to avoid the main page being protected. Floydian and Verbal made responses [17]. Meanwhile, a fifth editor also endorsed the differing position at NPOVN.
• On 22 Oct, Verbal made an edit [18], which was reverted a bit under 1.5 hours later by Floydian [19]. 5 minutes later, Verbal reverted again. Floydian partially reverted. Simonm223 (talk · contribs) made a partial revert without discussion, which was reverted by Floydian under 15 minutes later. Hipocrite (talk · contribs) partially reverted 5 minutes later, and Floydian made partial reverts 3 minutes later. Simonm223 again reverted.
• On 23 Oct, Mangoe (talk · contribs) boldly removed a section from the article. This was reverted by Stmrlbs (talk · contribs). Mangoe then broke WP:BRD and reverted. Mangoe finally opened a discussion and the article was then protected by Master of Puppets. Simonm223 and Verbal endorsed Mangoe's view; Floydian and Stmrlbs did not. Was this sufficient to form a consensus to remove the section?
• Later, during one of the discussions later, Verbal closed part of one discussion in which he was involved with Floydian, where Floydian asked a question. Floydian reverted the close and Verbal edit-warred to maintain it, even though he should not have been closing it off to begin with.
• Accordingly, it appears that a 1RR on Verbal and a page ban (and possibly 1RR) on Floydian is warranted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes it is helpful to distinguish between mainstream science and fringe POV-pushing. Mathsci (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you're looking for advice as to whether or not specific content should be in an article, then ANI is not the right place. I'm not disagreeing about Mastcell's ability to discuss content, merely that the content portions don't belong 'round here. If that discussion will solve most of the issues above, then awesome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content issue itself should not be argued here, as there are several open venues for that. However, the content is relevant in some ways to the discussion at hand. I only hope that when the content is discussed, that its relevance to this discussion is mentioned if its not abundantly clear. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that content should not be discussed here. Whether or not one side is 'right', there was still edit-warring on both sides (note: 'edit-warring' and '3RR' don't have to be synonymous - you can edit war without breaking 3RR). I'm fully in support of letting go of all the warring behaviour and excusing it provided that all parties promise to not do it again; that way, we can get to discussing the content and resolving this. If that can't be done, then this will go nowhere.

Oh, I am previously involved, for the record. Master of Puppets 04:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on the point raised by Master of Puppets, editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules (such as 3RR) should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Edit-warring is unacceptable, whether by reversion or otherwise; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic. Appropriately, more stringent sanctions would be needed (and likely handed out) if this were escalated to ArbCom the next time this sort of thing happens at the article.

For the record, at the request from MastCell for uninvolved input on a previous occasion, I took a look at the conduct on this article a while back - at that point, I felt it necessary to propose a topic ban on DHawker, and that was enacted accordingly. I'm not aware of any other interactions with both parties. Again, as someone completely uninvolved, I've taken a look at some of the major conduct issues and I outlined recent major issues above. I too would support letting go of all, should both parties promise not to do it again; but they do need to take it as an absolute final warning with respect to such conduct on any article/talk they edit. The parties also need to understand that admin noticeboards are not a step in dispute resolution for a reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Verbal approached me on my talk page here. I thought the above comments by me and Master of Puppets explained the distinction between 3RR and edit-war, and why both sides engaged in edit-warring (see the timeline). Yet, it seems that Verbal still insists that his conduct was flawless, which suggests that he does not understand or accept the problems with his conduct. In such circumstances, the conduct is likely to continue in the future, and a promise to not let it happen again will be futile. I've tried once again to explain to him here. I am calling on an uninvolved admin to make Verbal (and others who fall in the same boat) understand that 3RR and edit-warring is not the same thing - what happened here was, for the most part, edit-warring, and is not acceptable. If another explanation does not happen or work, then sadly, sanctions will become necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally dispute Ncmvocalist's statement and interpretation of policy. I acted well within policy and made more than clear I wasn't going to engage in further reverting or respond to Floydian's clar editwarring, abuse, baiting, and gaming. Multiple other editors also reverted and discussed teh edits, leading Floydian to break 3RR twice. I wouldn't have made the second revert if I had known that Floydian was going to ignore policy (WP:BURDEN, for just one example) and insist upon his preferred version without discussion and against consensus. My crime seems to be AGF. I have acted well within policy and norms of wikipedia editing, and acually went beyond them requesting admin help as soon as I realised trouble was brewing - and since made no reverts, and made clear I wouldn't. In no way was I "editwarring". I see no justification for Ncmvocalist's claims. Verbal chat 11:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of article content and edits

I thought that I might as well spent another hour on the issue, and here a my results: Currently the article mentions that colloidal silver was used before the 1940s and for what it was used, but it doesn't really say why its use was discontinued. According to the medical literature, the main reason was not the "introduction of antibiotics", but the side effects caused by colloidal silver. Since I have an web page which quotes some literature (and a lot of experience with literature search), the articles aren't hard to find, and the Journal of the American Medical Association certainly is a reliable source. There is an article from 1935 about an "alarming increase of argyrosis". (SEVENTY CASES OF GENERALIZED ARGYROSIS FOLLOWING ORGANIC AND COLLOIDAL SILVER MEDICATION). There is also an article from 1940 in the Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery: (ARGYRIA RESULTING FROM INTRANASAL MEDICATION). I think these sources are sufficient to establish that the medical use of colloidal silver was discontinued sometime in the 1940s because of its side-effects, which leads me to the interesting question: Why doesn't the article mention that?

If you look at the point of controversy between Verbal and Floydian, you'll see that it is about two sources diff. One is a study about in vitro anti-bacterial effects of colloidal silver from 2008, but the other is a book from 1920. So, if Floydian, as I assume, managed to find a book source from 1920, why didn't he manage to find articles in highly reputable medical journals from 1935 and 1940? There are three possible explanations: 1) Bad luck 2) neglect of academic sources, in favour of on-line sources or 3) tendentious editing. One can suspect that Floydian only used those sources that support his view. That is the editing pattern of a partial-POV-warrior.

The problem is, if you want to identify those partial-POV-warriors, you can't rely on an an analysis of editor conduct. Why? Because someone who is, as a matter of principle, interested in a neutral point of view, is also a POV-Warrior, only a NPOV one. You need to analyse the content of an article, and identify the POVs involved, which in this speaks case against Floydian. From his comments on the noticeboard I know that he would downplay the side effects of colloidal silver diff, and a short analysis of the point of controversy in the article would allow a similar conclusion.

As an editor concerned about NPOV (regardless of whether your understanding of the NPOV in a specific case is correct), you don't have many options. If you argue nicely, but abstain from reverts, the partial-POV-warriors will simply ignore your comments on the talk page and only reply with 1-or-2-line remarks. If you confront him, and revert him if necessary, he will go whining to the administrators noticeboards and try to frame you for edit warring. There currently isn't a working strategy to deal with a partial-POV-warrior, which is among the reasons why I am not doing much at Wikipedia any more. You can only chose the confrontational tactic and hope that some people at the noticeboards are competent enough (and are willing to spent the time!) to identify the core of the issue.

Back to this specific issue: If Floydian could agree to abstain from editing the article for 3 months, that would be a workable solution. It would allow the removal of the full protection and should give me and other interested editors enough time to research some facts that are currently missing in the article - like the real reason why colloidal silver was discarded as a medical treatment in the 1940s. But after my previous experiences at Wikipedia, I would not be willing to work on this article when I have to fear that someone who can't be talked to reverts my edits. Zara1709 (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT what the present war is about. The question of why colloidal silver use was discontinued is a minor issue. DHawker (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the comment Floydian gave me on the fringe theories noticeboards, the reason why the use of colloidal silver was discontinued is indeed part of the issue, because Floydian reacted quite strongly to that comment. I should have searched the academic sources to substantiate my view back then, but I didn't, so I supplemented them now. And anyway, I found another source, and this time a recent one (although this source also quotes my 1935 source). The side effects of colloidal silver can be more severe then he probably thought so far:

"Consumption of large doses of colloidal silver can result in coma, pleural edema, and hemolysis. Colloidal silver is also toxic to the bone marrow and may be associated with agranulocytosis. The toxic effects of inorganic silver ingested orally in large doses are very similar to any corrosive solution." (Systemic argyria associated with ingestion of colloidal silver

This certainly is of higher relevance to the article then the question whether colloidal silver shows anti-bacterial effects in vitro. Floydian is working on this article at least since September; I needed not even two hours to find these sources, so how come Floydian didn't find them in about two months? I think that this is a very good question, and it helps us more then the discussion who reverted how often. Zara1709 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that but you are taking a look at conduct from several weeks before the conflict. ANI is not for content disputes. It should also be noted that I have no access to academic journals. I've only made use of the sources that were in the article when I arrived, and have brought any potential sources to the talk page rather than editing the article. Am I POV warrior solely because I felt a source that was brought to the page seemed biased? Also a quick look through the talk page will show that I'm the one with the three or four paragraph debates while the others generally put two sentences in that completely evade me. You'll also notice the more up to date study from the more reliable source that I published above (Oxford Press > Dermatology Online Journal) that never once mentions the toxicity of argyria, despite the paper being a focus on the health effects of silver. But I appreciate the generalization, once again, Zara. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is now discussed on how many noticeboards, including this one? 3? 4? Already in September you were unable to admit that colloidal silver does have dangerous side-effects (and you still are). You were apparently trying to push the point that colloidal silver shows anti-bacterial effects in vitro into the article, before it was fully protected. True, I can't rule out that you simple did not find the sources I found, but then again, the only additional tool I have at my disposal is a database of academic journals, however, you could find these journals yourself using any search engine. The other possibility is that you are trying to promote colloidal silver, and simply ONLY brought forward those sources that support your view.

Really, why are so many articles at Wikipedia in such a bad shape? Is it because many of our editors simply are incompetent, or is it because many of them are not interested in writing good, neutral articles, but in promoting their personal POV? Probably, this case is not altogether clear, but I've seen editors "play stupid to spin articles in their direction" (to paraphrase a statement from Dbachmann) before. Of course, this page is not for content disputes, but I have to provide the evidence here that gives substance to the view that you, Floydian, are trying to promote a fringe theory at the article Colloidal silver by using the sources in a highly selective way. The evidence is here, and let me add that, aside from that short encounter with Floydian in September, I am an uninvolved editor. Zara1709 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the invitro effects were placed in the lead independently of my contributions to the article (and as far as I remember without going and checking, was there when I stumbled upon the article). Most of my edits involved changing the wording to represent the information that was presently on the article. I will still deny the dangerous side effects, as clearly the danger of the side effects are disputed from source to source. Every editor brings a point of view to the table, especially with fringe topics, and many editors have admitted to their POV. It an go without saying that any editor who takes a stance on the subject is going to input terms into a search engine looking for studies that validate the way they feel. As long as those are valid and reliable studies, are those editors committing some atrocity, or are they merely one of the many POV's making edits to the article? I have always discussed my changes before implementing them, and problems only arose when other editors failed to uphold the same courtesy and civility. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floydian, I am sure that you will not find an article from an reputable medical journal that disputes that colloidal silver can have severe side effects. Of course, your average article on the anti-bacterial effects of colloidal silver in in-vitro experiments will simply not discuss the side effects of colloidal silver when used as a medication, but the absence of this fact there is justified because of the limited scope of these articles. In an encyclopaedic article, on the other hand, the absence of the very same facts is not justifiable. I took a look at the edit history, and the source I have quoted, "Systemic argyria associated with ingestion of colloidal silver" has been present in the article for over a year. Revision of September 22, 2008. Currently you are using this source as a reference for the statements that: ".. some websites still list its use for the prevention of colds and flu, and the treatment of more serious conditions such as diabetes, cancer, chronic fatigue syndrome, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis, among other diseases." and that "A number of case reports describe argyria after ingestion of colloidal silver marketed as an alternative-medicine treatment." Yes, this source say that. However, the source also has includes a comprehensive summary of the "Toxicology of silver", where it includes the information I have already quoted above: "Consumption of large doses of colloidal silver can result in coma, pleural edema, and hemolysis." Is there any good reason not to mention this in the article, aside from the fact that this information does not fit into your personal point-of-view? Zara1709 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I hadn't even noticed... And if it has been that way for over a year than clearly other editors didn't notice either. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zara. One good reason not to include that statement might be that the source provides no references, no case reports, or any details whatsover to support it. They sound like pretty exceptional claims to me. Isnt there a Wiki rule somewhere that says exceptional claims need exceptional sources? This source doesn't cut it IMO. DHawker (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zara, 20 of the 31 references on the Colloidal Silver article talk about side effects, the main one being argyria. The colloidal silver lead paragraph has something about side effects as well as there being a section on side effects with a link to the article on argyria. It is not like the side effects aren't being discussed in the article. stmrlbs|talk 01:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone also let verbal know that he does not own the talk page, and that he doesn't have the right to close relevant discussions on the talk page just because he cannot provide an answer to them.[20] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Verbal is doing is "disruptive refactoring". The policy on Refactoring is stated quite clearly here: WP:Refactoring: "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." stmrlbs|talk 01:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. I only set out here to show that Floydian should not be trusted with editing this article, because he is unable to accept the view that is expressed on the article topic in reliable academic sources, and so far this discussion has provided ample evidence of this. Now DHawker thinks he can invalidate my source by pointing out that the sentence I quote doesn't use any references - so what? As an article in an academic journal it is a reliable source, an although this particular journal is an online journal, this does not speak against it. In fact, if you look at the reference that article does provide, you will see that it quotes among other an article from the Journal of Clinical Toxicology:

"Conclusions: We emphasize the lack of established effectiveness and potential toxicity of these [silver] products." Silver Products for Medical Indications: Risk-Benefit Assessment, Abstract

I could bet, if we would have access to the full pdf, it would also point out that 'death' is among these risk, if you really overdose yourself with Colloidal silver. Would be no surprise - I think there are also people who have overdosed themselves with vitamin c, and died. Any way, if you were really concerned with writing a balanced article based on academic sources, the potential toxicity of Colloidal silver would be pointed out more explicitly in the article and there would probably be a tag 'Expert needed', since you would need someone who has access to medical journals for a throughout review of the respective articles - if you don't want to rely on the article in the Dermatology Online Journal (which would be fine in my opinion). However, since at least one of the involved editors persists in denying the potential toxicity of Colloidal silver RIGHT HERE, and the discussion on the article revolves, not around the issue of toxicity, but around the issue of the relevance of in vitro studies - which are certainly less relevant than the toxicity of Colloidal silver for humans - I come to the legitimate conclusion that the article is the target of fringe advocates who use sources in a highly selective way in an attempt to spin the article in their direction.

Since I have a lot of practice finding academic sources, I could literally do that for weeks, until I've found quoted every single accessible source on this issue. However, against people convinced of a partial-POV this skill is utterly worthless. Every time I quote another academic source, they do the equivalent of putting their hands against their ears and going on to sing *la,la,la,la,la,la...* Then they try to distract the readers by talking about something else, like the behaviour of other involved editors. The problem is: That strategy quite often works, which is why many articles on Wikipedia are in bad shape. I am not doing much any more on Wikipedia for that reason, but if you want to save Colloidal silver from becoming another one of these bad articles, you should identify the editors not interested in writing a balanced article based on academic sources, and ban these editors from the topic. Zara1709 (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zara. Stop whining (or whatever it is you are doing) and just make your first contribution to the article. If its worthy it will stand. If not it will be ditched. That's how Wiki works. There are plenty of colloidal silver opponents who will support you.DHawker (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Then they try to distract the readers by talking about something else, like the behaviour of other involved editors.".. You mean what Verbal and ScienceApologist have done the entire time? Yet I have three well phrased, well worded questions that they try to lock up as against WP:TALK. Not only that but I'm providing academic sources as well. The only source I've questioned is NCCAM, which is clearly not an academic journal. But I'm an advocate, so only I can be wrong, correct?

The thing is, we don't have access beyond the abstract, so drawing conclusions would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Whose to say that I'm the one spinning sources around? Of course the person who doesn't exclaim the fringe theory is an advocate who cannot contribute constructively and must be banned. Thats not one sided dictatorship thinking. I've repeatedly asserted why I take my position on the toxicology, and you clearly have it go through one ear and out the other. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT Also, I'm sure death is a side effect for almost any pharmacological product in the world, if you really overdose yourself with it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whose whining? I am only lamenting the general state of affairs at Wikipedia, which is something different. I would suppose you would be "whining" here, if that strategy would promise any success to you, but currently it isn't. I mean, DHawker apparently sees it as his mission to fight, quote, "colloidal silver opponents". What kind of approach is that? The idea behind Wikipedia is not that it is a battleground between adherents of different POVs - the idea behind Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopaedia based on reliable sources. So if the reliable sources say that colloidal silver has dangerous side-effects, you have to accept that, or you are not qualified to edit the article on colloidal silver. Of course, we could simply have the article unprotected, and then resume hostilities there. I would assume, if I was to edit the article, whatever my edit would be - you or someone else would revert it, and then we would have another edit war. I am assuming that, because that is how the last NPOV controversy I took part in went. Then we could count who has more supporters, but in any case you could make another report on this noticeboard about evil Zara, who keeps restoring his revision and is unwilling to compromise. As I said, this has happened to previously in other controversies. Now take this: I am unwilling to compromise, because I am right. Wikipedia articles should not be foul compromises between hostile fractions of editors, but encyclopaedic articles based on reliable sources. The view that colloidal silver has toxic side-effects is based on reliable sources, and BEFORE we continue working on the article, and want every involved editor to accept that.

I think Floydian and Dhawker have both given enough evidence for the assumption that they are advocating the use of colloidal silver, and that this influences their editorial judgement. DHawker has, right here, implied that I was a "colloidal silver opponent", whereas in fact all I have done is to notice that some editors are denying the dangerous side-effects of colloidal silver, and have then searched for reliable sources on this issue, and as a result, I have established that colloidal silver has dangerous side-effects, and I am using this to arrive at a decision at this controversy. Let's explain this in analogy to a poker game. Several editors were gambling about the article colloidal silver. Since I was sitting at the table too (albeit not in full view), I raised, under the assumption that some editors are bluffing, and are in fact not trying to write a balanced article, but to promote a partial POV. I re-raised, and now I want to see. These editors now only have two options. 1) to fold, and abstain from editing the article further, because I can demand from any Wikipedia editor that he is able to accept the view of the most reputable sources, in this case the view of academic medical journals. 2) to put down you cards and let me see them; you still have the option to find a reliable source that says that colloidal silver does not have dangerous side-effects, but currently you are not even trying.

Of course, there are a few more options. You can angrily leave the table, or you can assault the other player, in this case me, with personal attacks. But I think I you have to resort to those options, you have lost, too. Zara1709 (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and the people who disclaim colloidal silver let that influence their editorial judgement. What's your point? You've established that it has dangerous side effects because you found a source which verifies your point of view (and you very clearly do have one). I can find sources that verify my point of view too... But mine must be wrong, because I advocate the use of the stuff (Which I've repeatedly mentioned that I don't, but you didn't hear that), and anybody who advocates what wikipedia has defined as a fringe theory through some wide criteria must be wrong, always. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you didn't get it. When I noticed this controversy I spent roughly 2 hours researching about the topic, focussing on the issue of the potential side-effects of colloidal silver. I came to the conclusion, that, according to reliable sources, colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects. This is not my POV - considering that all the research I've done on this question was part of my work at Wikipedia I would even go so far as to say, that I don't have a personal POV, I only have a view as an editor, which I have throughoutly justified here. "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources." (You actually made me quote "wp:rs".) If several reputable sources say that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects I can demand from every editor working on the article colloidal silver, that he accepts this view. Since you do not have the option to challenge Wikipedia's policies, you either have to admit that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects, or you have to present reputable sources that say that it doesn't. However, considering how reputable the medical journals I have quoted are, it is rather unlike that you find other reputable medical journals that disagree with them. If you think that "you can find sources that verify your point of view too", please try. IAs a matter of principle, I will not rule out the possibility that the sources I found are not the most reputable ones. However, as long as you persist in denying the mainstream view (as far as I've identified it) and are not willing to discuss the issue based on reliable sources, you are advocating a fringe POV, and it can't be expect from Verbal or any other editor to cooperate with you in writing the article. Without the acceptance of our content policies there is no basis for a discussion whatsoever. I think I can rest my case now. Zara1709 (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can rest you case when you can point out where Verbal discussed this with me instead of making accusations at my character. I will go with the sources you show me, which you have. I will not listen to here-say, or accusations at me, but rather retorts to my arguments. I don't want editors to say "This is the mainstream view", I want links to the sources so I can read them myself. If you look to the beginning of this ANI discussion, however, you will see that the potential side effects were not the issue at hand. The issue was the potential applications. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zara. I repeat. Make a contribution to the article and stop whining and filling space here.DHawker (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You both are still not admitting defeat. I used this case as test to see whether it is possible to identify partial-POV warriors, and the test worked. So far, Floydian and DHawker have demonstrated that they are not able to conduct a discussion of the topic (colloidal silver) BASED ON RELIABLE SOURCES, and DHawker has actually now resorted to personal attacks, whereas I have limited myself to not-so-subtle polemics.

Without the acceptance of the policy that articles on Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources, here is no common ground for a discussion, and any discussion at the article would be futile. They would only use any attempt to edit the article as a pretext for starting another edit war, and then they would try to frame other editors for edit warring, as Floydian did when he started this section. So either Floydian and DHawker are banned from the topic (until they affirm that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources, especially concerning the article Colloidal silver), or the article is doomed. If you want to have an acceptable article, sooner or later they would have to be banned from the topic - let's see how long it takes before this issue goes to arbitration committee, that is, if the article is ever unprotected and Verbal and/or some other editors fight the issue until the bitter end. Zara1709 (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DHawker, your comments about "whining" are really incivil. Please tone it down. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my message, Zara, or are you just on an automatic loop now? "I will not listen to here-say, or accusations at me, but rather retorts to my arguments. I don't want editors to say "This is the mainstream view", I want links to the sources so I can read them myself."

Despite Verbal claiming the contrary, nobody discussed the changes. I will not drop that issue, as per usual with ANI, everything gets ignored because people read half the text and come to a conclusion that they want to, or that favours the editors that they know better. I'm tired of editors whining that they've been insulted when nobody has insulted them, or making up a variety of terms to describe the actions of the editor rather than responding to them (gaming, baiting, etc, I don't know what that BS is. I asked questions, I expect answers or I make changes). My questions are valid, they question the validity of the sources (not the reliable sources regarding side effects, if you actually bother to read anything I've said up to this point, you'd realise the issue is around the NCCAM source.), and I will remove the questionable sources if nobody will bother to discuss them. Without discussion there is NOT A CONSENSUS.

Zara, you've already decided my evil destructive motives, and nothing I say or do will change that, so I'm rather indifferent to your opinion from here on out. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Accusation of personal attacks aside, this ANI thread really does support this statement from Zara: "Floydian and DHawker have demonstrated that they are not able to conduct a discussion of the topic (colloidal silver) BASED ON RELIABLE SOURCES". I am uninvolved with this article, but have synthesised colloidal silver (and many other nanoparticle metals) and used it in biochemical assays. There is tonnes of resaearch on colloidal silvers biological activity, including adverse medical and environmental effects. Toxicity is size, concentration and ligand dependant, but certainly exists, and simply require searching for academic sources to understand. If editors dislike sources, they should be searching for other sources that disagree, not arguing about editors reasons for adding the source. I think topic bans for editors or other article restictions (1 or 0 rvert rules) are needed here.YobMod 11:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yobmod, Zaras so-called 'reliable source' about pleural edema (a heart problem) was little more than an aside in an article on argryia (a skin condition) in a dermatology journal. It contained no references, no cases studies or any other details whatsoever that could verify the claims. I simply pointed out that for those reasons i considered it a poor source for such exceptional claims, yet you say this demonstrates I'm unable to conduct a discussion 'based on reliable sources'. Very strange. I further suggested that if Zara thinks its such a good source then put it in the article and stop complaining in advance about the opposition she expects to receive. But as far as I know zara has never, ever contributed to the article so overall i find her long winded complaints here rather bizarre. Anyway, this is not the place for discussing article content.DHawker (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advising an editor to add poor content to articles so you can edit war to remove it does not seem like conducting a discussion to me.YobMod 22:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break

Let's see; I have brought forward three sources that mention that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects:

• SEVENTY CASES OF GENERALIZED ARGYROSIS FOLLOWING ORGANIC AND COLLOIDAL SILVER MEDICATION, INCLUDING A BIOSPECTROMETRIC ANALYSIS OF TEN CASES, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1935
• ARGYRIA RESULTING FROM INTRANASAL MEDICATION, Archives of Otalaryngoly, 1940
• Systemic argyria associated with ingestion of colloidal silver, Dermatology Online Journal, 2005

Although there are likely not the most reputable sources, they are reputable enough to establish, in the absence of contradiction sources, the fact that the view that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects is the mainstream medical-academic view. The Journal of the American Medical Association must be among the most reputable medical journals that there are in the U.S. But what do these editors do? One is saying, quote: "I will not listen to here-say.. I don't want editors to say 'This is the mainstream view', I want links to the sources so I can read them myself." The sources are here, please read them. The first 150 words that are provided from two articles for non-subscribers are sufficient. And by the way, Floydian, you started with aggressive comments the comment on the issue, remember:diff? Seeing that the topic of colloidal silver was discussed, I provided a link to a homepage, which in turn quotes 17 further sources. I would assume that any honest editor working on the article would a least take a look to see if the sources are useful, but Floydian failed to even notice. So, based on this encounter, I already was under the assumption that Floydian was trying to promote a fringe POV, and after I pointed it out to him, in this discussion, he, and DHawker, did not do anything to challenge this assumption, but reacted in a way which only increased my suspicion against them. It would have been simple for them to say: *Yes, you're right. The medical use of colloidal silver was discontinued in the 1940s because it can have dangerous side-effects, this is more important for the article than the in-vitro effects of colloidal silver.* , but they didn't. They reacted just as you would expect it from someone who cannot accept the fact that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects. Of course, if they cannot accept what reputable academic sources have to say, then it would not make much sense to attempt a discussion with them about the due weight that would have to be given to studies on the in-vitro effects of colloidal silver in the article. That said, I could of course search for more reputable sources on the side-effects of colloidal silver. I would need between 10 and 60 minutes to find the next one, however, this would currently not change anything. Floydian and DHawker have not even attempted yet to find a reputable source for the view that colloidal silver does not have any dangerous side-effects, so I am leading 3:0 anyway; and even if I had more sources, that would not change their attitude. As I said: For a meaningful discussion you need some common ground (which on Wikipedia is provided, among other, by wp:rs). Since Floydian and DHawker have openly rejected a discussion of the topic based on Wikipedia's common ground, the should not be editing the corresponding article. Zara1709 (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zara. Have you even read the article? The article is FULL of comments about the side effects. Theres a section in the article specifically called 'Adverse Effects'. Most of the 30+ references in the article are about the side effect argyria. No-one could possibly read the article and conclude colloidal silver is harmless. What more do you want? (And this discussion is over as far as I'm concerned) DHawker (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, you have finally conceded that point, and admit that colloidal silver can have dangerous side-effects. So now we can move forward in the discussion, although we would still need to clarify why Floydian felt it necessary to understate these side-effects. I mean, even as purely a skin-discolouration, argyria is certainly not cosmetic and harmless. Here are the quotes from the literature: " All these [15] children [who suffer from argyria as a result of taking colloidal silver] will present throughout their lives a conspicuous and permanent bluish or slate-gray discoloration that will select them as objects of whispered comments by friends and strangers." (JAMA); " The physician who has seen even a single victim of full-blown argyrosis, with its typical generalized pigmentation of the skin, giving the patient a bronzed blue or slate color which has been described aptly as the appearance of a corpse suddenly come to life, ..." (Arch Otolaryngol) The author of the second article explicitly says that taking silver-containing nasal medication might result in making you look like a zombie - albeit more poetically. All the medical articles I've read so far contain such dire warnings, some are more, some are less explicit.

Since we now can proceed to discussing the article content - what does the article make of this? If you take a systematic approach to the article colloidal silver, the first big problem is that it does not identify the most reputable sources. Ideally, most articles would have a section "Literature" or "Further Reading"; those sections are provided for the readers, too, of course, but they have an important purpose for editors - they identify the most reputable sources, which one would have to read if one intends to do more work on the article and which are the are needed to structure any discussion on due weight and balancing, in short, on NPOV. Because THESE DISCUSSIONS, to say that again, ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BATTLES BETWEEN EDITORS OF DIFFERENT POVs. The article should follow the most reputable sources in presenting the various POVs, and therefore a discussion on NPOV has to based on reliable sources, too.

After this general justification of our approach, what can we say on the controversy of this case? Let's take a look at this edit, for example. Floydian had removed the mentioning of the adverse side-effects and apparent lack of effectiveness of colloidal silver from the lead section, and Verbal restored it. Considering that the reputable sources I had found all prominently warn against the use of colloidal silver, for its ineffectiveness and dangerous side-effects, it would violate wp:NPOV not to mention this in the lead section, and Vernal was right in restoring the statement. We don't need to discuss the question whether Verbal could have justified his edits better. I think this discussion has given ample evidence to support the view that Floydian is unable to conduct a discussion based on reliable sources, so regardless of the approach Verbal would have taken in the issue, there is no way a meaningful discussion could have been achieved.

Well, it's not my task to come to a decision on this issue. I have good reasons to suspect that Floydian is trying to push a fringe POV, but then again, in my personal experience it takes several months to successfully take down one of this kind - and honestly, I don't have that much time for Wikipedia any more. (It was interesting to see, though, that there actually might be a workable strategy to identify these editors.) Seeing that the article is currently unprotected, I think we could try with: *Let's hope that the edit wars on this article don't continue* - if not, there will be another thread on this article on the noticeboards anyway. Zara1709 (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Civility addressed, NPA addressed, removal endorsed and copyvio reported at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_October_22. Toddst1 (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is about Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and his conduct at Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation . Engaged in edit warring here: [22] [23] When he realized he had reached 3RR, he then canvassed two like-minded editors [24] [25] to join the fray. This is a violation of WP:CANVASS and, while not technically violating WP:3RR, it is a violation of the spirit of WP:EDITWAR. There has been similar conduct at another article, ACORN. I believe this conduct has earned a block. Since he has already experienced 24-hour and 48-hour blocks, this one should be a seven-day block. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have conveniently left out the fact that you've been edit-warring too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that my edits seek to restore WP:NPOV, while LotLE is POV pushing; and when I attempted to engage him in discussion on his User Talk page, he deleted my comments and went canvassing. Every quote in the article that is more than three words in length supports Churchill. We have extensive quotes from socialists such as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, but none from conservatives such as Ann Coulter or Eugene Volokh. It gives the inaccurate impression that the entire academic community believes his firing was a miscarriage of justice. Policy even trumps consensus here, and NPOV is a fundamental principle. I did not violate WP:3RR nor did I violate WP:CANVASS. Rather than be drawn into a continued edit war, I came here. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have edit-warred, and NPOV does not excuse your conduct. Therefore, any sanction on the others will require a sanction on you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)WP:NPOV does not mean that every perceived "positive" entry must be matched by a perceived "critical" one. This is a fundamental error that trips up far too many editors these days, especially in political articles. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I have not violated WP:CANVASS. LotLE has violated WP:CANVASS. I never even tried to match "every perceived 'positive' entry [with a] perceived 'critical' one." If I had, I would have had to introduce about six or seven quotes rather than just one. I'm just trying to satisfy WP:NPOV. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as the article stands there are three lengthy direct quotes from Churchill supporters and zero from those who though the decision was balanced. This certainly seem to go against WP:WEIGHT. WVBluefield (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)There are more than just three, Bluefield. Look higher on the page for quotes from Emma Perez, a supportive Colorado University faculty member, and from Noam Chomsky. Aside from the findings of the investigation and the judge's ruling in the lawsuit, this is a Ward Churchill hagiography. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on its own does not become excused because of edit-warring and other conduct issues by another party; any sanction on the other side will mean you too will be sanctioned - that you feel satisfied you get less charges of misconduct on your list than the other side suggests that you are battling. Sorry, that is not acceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick review of your edits indicates you've supported LotLE's POV pushing in the past. As a like-minded editor, I'm surprised that he overlooked you in his canvassing expedition. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're adding gross unjustified assumptions of bad faith to your list. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to others, who have not supported LotLE's POV pushing in earlier cases, to make that determination. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting or not, edit-warring is edit-warring. There's only one excuse to break 3RR, and that's vandalism. We have a bold, revert, discuss cycle ... note, it's not a bold, revert, keep frigging doing it cycle. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. In particular, "but my version is NPOV" is one of the lamest excuses for edit-warring ever. I don't think the relatively mild warring by both sides so far merits blocks, but if this continues, WP:AN3 is thataway. And please stop discussing the content dispute here, that's what the article talk page is for.  Sandstein  17:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)I agree that we have a "bold, revert, discuss" cycle but when I tried to follow it, my attempt to discuss the matter on LotLE's User Talk page was deleted. At that juncture, I chose not to continue the edit war, and came here. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article alk page, IP. Got to settle content disputes at the article talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)LotLE has also engaged in edit-warring and other misconduct at the ACORN article. This should be investigated before dismissing this matter. I suggest we give it some time for others to step forward. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just put the stick down. Either. Or. Whatever "ip." Bali ultimate (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in light of Ncmvocalist's distaste for "gross unjustified assumptions of bad faith," I will observe that LotLE has also engaged in "gross unjustified assumptions of bad faith." Specifically, he's accused me of being a sockpuppet,[26] with no evidence other than this content dispute. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, blah, blah. I'd bet my last dollar that you're either a returned banned user or a sock for an ongoing user too. Your behavior has convinced me of that. You'll just have to live with other people's suspicion.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you'll have to live with my suspicion, without even checking your edit history, that you're another like-minded editor who has supported and defended LotLE's edit warring in the past, like Ncmvocalist. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint by a sock puppet is silly. But I would note one minor thing that editors may not have noticed in 64.208.230.145's mischaracterization. S/he posted an article content matter on my user talk page, so I moved the comment (verbatim) to the article talk where it made sense to appear (and noted my action there). After this notice, I saw that WVBluefield made a good edit to the article in question to provide balance to the section the anon was trying to edit. I mention on the article talk that I agree with that improvement. LotLE×talk

It is exactly as I suspected, LotLE is the "attack dog" for a large group of editors who have been POV pushing for years. They eliminate negative material from WP articles about progressive (and radically left-wing) persons and groups such as William Ayers, Barack Obama, ACORN and Ward Churchill. I suspect User:Ncmvocalist and User:Bali ultimate are members of this group. It is painfully obvious that User:Scjessey, now serving a one-year topic ban from all politically related articles, is another "attack dog" for the group. They provide cover for each other at WP:ANI and ArbCom. They use tag team tactics to avoid WP:3RR violations during edit wars. User:Noroton, a respected and long-established editor here at WP, has gone into great length on his User Talk page regarding this group. Admins evidently ignore misconduct by this POV-pushing group, while harshly punishing anyone else who speaks out against the group. I urge any admin with any sense of self-respect and genuine NPOV to step forward and join me in fully investigating this matter. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Everyone knows there is no cabal! HalfShadow (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Noroton was very thorough. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is rather chilling given Noroton's history here, his attempt to intervene in the Obama arbcom case, and 64's attempt to wake him from the wiki-dead.[27] Let's nip this sock in the bud before it causes a real fuss. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC) stricken in light of subsequent statements by all concerned - Wikidemon (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um... tangential point - Noam Chomsky is an anarchist, not a socialist. Furthermore not all lefitsts support Ward Churchill. The guy is a plagiarist. That he is saying correct things doesn't make that less academically dishonest that he claims credit for it. Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(before ec) I agree with the 64 sock's POV here regarding article balance so I can't quite say I'm "like minded". However, I find LotLE's argument persuasive that the specific content 64 wants to include is redundant and not pertinent to the section. All this can and should be discussed on the article talk page. For anyone who needs context, Ward Churchill is an incendiary subject both on and off Wikipedia, one of the most militant Native American rights supporters who accuses the US of ongoing genocide and wrote an essay basically saying that American policies caused 9/11 and that the victims at ground zero deserved to die because they were agents of financial imperialism. Alas, he was by most serious observers' accounts unmasked as a fake Native-American, and found to have fabricated much of his most noted academic research. That he has supporters at all in the US is interesting, and they are very strident. Some of the content that gets added to the article in support of Churchill seems very pointed and fringe-y. It's a good article to avoid if one values one's wiki-sanity. Against that context we have an IP editor who has edited a number of high-profile political articles lately, jumping into the fray of accusations, and who is clearly familiar with many old Wikipedia disputes and the players in those disputes. They seem to be carrying a grudge from past interactions with LotLE - rather than AGF we have escalation and complaints. Many to most of the editors who were antagonizing LotLE in months past are on permanent involuntary wiki-breaks for socking and/or tendentious editors, so it is a reasonable question whether this editor is a sock. Further, established editors getting together to ask each other whether an suspicious IP account is an old sock is not canvassing - if editors couldn't compare notes on socks we wouldn't be able to deal with them. I've edited the Churchill article before, it's on my watch list, and I'm no pushover for requests made on my talk page - in fact, I initially agreed with 64. And here I'm solidly on 64's side regarding the POV of the Churchill article. But this page is not for POV battles, it's for administering the encyclopedia. If 64 is going to hurl accusations, edit war contentious articles, and start administrative complaints, we're going to have to settle sooner or later whether it's a legitimate account. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after EC) - 64's latest post is WP:QUACKing. Nearly all the accounts that wrote in those terms about that particular group of articles, and who made those accusations against that group of editors, are all indeffed as parts of one sock farm or another. Most are logged at the Obama article probation page sanction list. We let them troll far too long during the election and wasted thousands of hours of productive editing time. We shouldn't let them cause so much disruption this time. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, go ahead. Your attempts to shoot the messenger, like the criticisms against the Colorado University investigation of Ward Churchill, do not invalidate the complaint I'm lodging. There is a group of editors who are POV pushing. Several of them have block histories for edit warring, so I'm not making this up. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, as do others who have apparantly resorted to socking. Grsz¹¹ 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is simple. Stop edit warring on both sides, and work out any POV problems on the article's talk page. I'm actually on 64's side here and would support their attempt to update the article, if not that specific proposal. My comments go to a different issue that is relevant to this page, that we have an old-timer editor ("sock", "messenger", take your pick) aggressively attacking other editors with the same sweeping accusations that caused so much disruption among the sockosphere in 2008 and early 2009. If 64 is willing to go to the talk page and work things out in a civil way without edit warring I think we should just close this thing as not actionable at this time. But any more stirring the pot on either side and we're going to have to deal with 64 as a likely bad hand account of another editor who may or may not be restricted from editing under their main account at the moment. I hope we won't have to deal with other old timers getting too rambunctious in their anti-sock patrols, though, that only flames the fire. Wikidemon (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being falsely accused (again) of being a sock, I'll add that LotLE's behavioral problems at ACORN and elsewhere are profound: hostile and needlessly abrasive edit summaries, edit-warring, and a generally combative demeanor ... except with his friends, who are accurately described by 64 as "like-minded." I suggested a six-month topic ban for LotLE on the article Talk page days ago. I go farther than 64 in reviewing not just edit histories, but also block logs and Talk page histories and archives; and I've been around long enough, using different IPs, to watch WP:ANI and WP:3RR (and take a peek at a few ArbCom proceedings when my curiosity is piqued). LotLE is a problem editor. His misbehavior has occasioned no less than nine 3RR reports, three ANI reports and six blocks. One thing that WD is correct about is a need for everyone on this thread to stop assuming that all IP editors are socks or SPAs, that we have ulterior motives, or that knowledge about problem editors is conclusive proof of sockpuppetry. Currently I'm using three IPs (work, school and home; to anticipate your question, 64 is not one of them) to edit three different subject areas at Wikipedia. No malice is intended. I just like to keep them separate (and I have some other personal reasons to keep my real life ID concealed). I'm not banned or blocked. This is the worst controversy I've encountered been involved with at Wikipedia. LotLE's behavior is far from collegial or collaborative, and he hasn't learned anything from his repeated blocks, except how to push the envelope (and his POV) without getting blocked. A block and a topic ban are well-deserved here. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The value of an anon IP's call for topic bans or blocks or whatnot is precisely nil, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth a million razzbuckniks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Well, you made them stop and think for 11 hours, 71. In much the same way that BU shut up and ran for cover when I mentioned the possibility that he was part of LotLE's posse. Thanks for your support. For the record, LotLE's comment above was originally posted while he was logged out. I checked the edit history of his IP address, and found a previous post he'd made in response to one of the many, many 3RR reports that have been made against him. That, in turn, led me to the person who made the report: Noroton. And to his User Talk page. Noroton's contributions over the years have been nothing less than spectacular. Everybody at WP should be ashamed to lose him. And his diagnosis of the systemic bias here at WP is deadly accurate. LotLE and Scjessey are the attack dogs for a large group of editors who WP:OWN the political articles, POV-pushing on behalf of the left. Admins are POV-pushing through them by proxy, by letting them get away with murder while quickly coming down like a ton of bricks for minor infractions by anybody who stands in their way.

It's despicable. And all of you should be ashamed. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not ashamed here. You're pushing your version of The Absolute Truth, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Tone down the melodrama and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cmt it's blindingly obvious at this point that the ips are connected to this banned user [28].Bali ultimate (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of socks

Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked for a week for operating at least three alternate accounts:[29]

• JohnWBarber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CountryDoctor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Reconsideration (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are nearly a year old, and collectively have made well over 10,000 edits, not all of them innocent, at least one of them contentious.[30]including during periods when Noroton was blocked or supposedly retired. I note that Noroton posted a long screed here similar to the accusations made above,[31] shortly before announcing his retirement,[32] and shares[33] with the 64 IP editor[34] a fondness for Goya. What to make of this? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What to make of it? That I may have been wrong in my guess as to who the ip socks belong to. Does any of it really matter? 86 the lot of them.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can whac all the moles but the game won't stop until the machine is good and done, or you find the off switch. At least the mechanical moles don't mess up Wikipedia articles then file AN/I threads accusing the players of being a POV-pushing cabal. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess in light of 64's subsequent statements and registration of an account after all these years, and Versageek's statement that 64 is unlikely to be Noroton, is that editors of like mind about what they perceive as Wikipedia bias and other editing problems tend to borrow each other's turns of phrases, explanations for what's going on, and Wikipedia iconography... In real life two people having the same talking point seems to convince people. On Wikipedia it's seen as evidence of socking or meatpuppeting. Anyway, I've modified my comments above somewhat based on assurances from these editors, and I'll assume good faith here.- Wikidemon (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. JohnWbarber was the initiator of the eDrama that is Wikipedia:Deletion review/David Shankbone. That may throw a kink into the works. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. It would've probably been initiated by someone else otherwise. –xeno^talk 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the blocking admin[35] to help us understand what's going on there. Wasn't there another incident lately of a long-time content editor around the American politics articles who created sock accounts in response to a block? I'm trying to recall. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what conclusions can be drawn from this, but Noroton is not a friend of mine and made that clear. -->David Shankbone 18:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Given Noroton's intense antipathy to David Shankbone and the actions of the JohnWbarber account, I wonder if a longer block for Noroton is not in order. It's also intensely ironic (and telling) that the account most prominently supporting the retention of the David Shankbone article and the overturning of its deletion is a Wikipedian who is "appalled" by the article subject and who, I'm forced to assume, probably intended to edit the article in a negative fashion if it were kept. Of course this is exactly the kind of thing those supporting deletion were worrying about—agenda based editing in a barely notable BLP of a Wikipedian which we as a community could probably not do enough to protect. I would again suggest to David that he simply ask for the article to stay deleted, both for his own good, and also to put an end to the endless discussion about this, but of course that's up to him. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Addendum. There's too much of an assumption of bad faith here on my part toward Noroton, and as I noted here I accept as true his statement on his talk page that he did not intend "to edit the article in a negative fashion if it were kept" as I suggested above. It would have been far better for me to wait to hear Noroton's side before posting speculative comments like the preceding. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any recognition I have received has come from work I did on this website. I believe in its ability to adhere to policies and guidelines to determine notability, to write NPOV articles and to protect those articles. Out of thousands of photos, I took a handful (most of which are deleted) that show nudity; whereas some people don't like my politics. I am aware I have hardcore detractors for whom nothing else I have done or will ever do will change their opinion of me one bit. That's fine. You can't live life without crossing somebody's line. I believe in this website, its policies and its people. I don't see how I could possibly argue otherwise. -->David Shankbone 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I just stumbled across this thread that appears to mention me. I don't believe I am familiar with this IP, but he/she is making attacks upon my character, and also incorrectly stating I have been topic banned from all political articles for a year. That's "complete cobblers", as we British like to say. I'd appreciate it if this obviously-socking, POV-pushing liar was blocked/topic-banned/nuked from orbit post haste. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the language of the posts above, and the style of edits, it would not surprise me at all if it turns out that Bali ultimate is right and this IP is User:BryanFromPalatine. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey wasn't topic-banned for a year from all politics-related articles. Instead, he was topic-banned for a year from all Barack Obama-related articles. Since the 64 IP editor wasn't seeking any additional sanctions against Scjessey at this time, a notice on his User Talk page was not required. ("Nuked from orbit"?) 71.57.8.103 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is also inaccurate. I was topic banned from Obama-related pages for 6 months. If someone is going to come to WP:ANI and make false statements and accusations against me, they should have enough common decency to notify me so that I can defend myself. And "nuked from orbit" is a reference to the movie Aliens. And why are you defending the socking IP anyway? Are you also a socking IP? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Scjessey. You do retain the right to edit articles about the politics of Kyrgyzstan and Sri Lanka, if you don't pick any fights or violate WP:3RR. But it wasn't "complete cobblers," was it? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are still wrong. I am free to edit any article that isn't related to Barack Obama. In addition, I self-extended that to cover articles that were somewhat tangentially-related to Obama, but did not mention the man by name. This was a purely personal choice, and not mandated in any way. I made this choice because I edit Wikipedia for fun, not for a political agenda. I don't know who you are, but it is clear that you should be blocked for not assuming good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I posted at Noroton's talk page saying that I believed his accounting, at least as it relates to JohnWBarber. Good times. -->David Shankbone 00:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Versageek stated that (s)he does not think Noroton and the 64.xxx IP editor are related; Noroton has said he did not mean to violate policy. Opinion seems to be running in favor of unblocking Noroton, but other than that we're done here, right? Wikidemon (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-This case sits astride the fine line between abusive socking & alternate accounts. Using an alternate account for aggressive debates IS disruptive, and being disruptive with an alternate account IS abusive - even if you've recently marked your main account 'retired'. IMHO, using an alternate account for debate tends to lead to incivility since people don't worry as much about the 'reputation' of a throw-away account. I don't think it was User:Noroton's intention to be abusive - he just stumbled into that trap. I leave it up to the community to decide how they want to handle the issue. --Versageek 06:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reason why BLP's on arguably non-notable subjects should default to delete. Cla68 (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The technical violation of WP:SOCK is clear. Segregating multiple accounts so that some of them can make controversial edits without casting the others in a bad light is what the policy is all about. Some of the edits under the Noroton account were very controversial - long term disruption to the Obama articles and extreme incivility (often against me, in the spirit of disclosure) leading to a series of blocks. That abuse was intentional, and assuming good faith about them is not at issue. Some of the edits under other account names were controversial in their own way but in different topic areas. But all that is water under the bridge. Accepting Noroton's statements at face value, he violated the sock policy unintentionally in the sense that although his intentional actions were against policy, he was unaware that they were against policy. In real life ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. But on Wikipedia the goal is to avoid future disruption, not to punish for past acts. Assuming that Noroton sincerely believed his actions were okay at the time, and accepting the assurances that he will not break policies he is aware of, an ongoing block serves no purpose. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again WP:AGF is stretched to its breaking point to cover an abusive editor's bad behavior, as this looks like one giant spin job by Noroton to me, to cover his ass. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. WP:AGF is stretched to its breaking point to cover the misbehavior of an abusive editor ... named LotLE. False accusations are made against the reporting editor, and enormous amounts of energy that could be devoted to improving articles are instead wasted by investigating these false accusations. People become discouraged, and start cutting back on the time they invest in editing (or abandon editing entirely). The damage done by LotLE spreads outward and intensifies exponentially. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created this account. All edits by 64.208.230.145 are mine. Let's try to AGF and move forward in a constructive way. There are a lot of articles here that need all the attention we're investing in Noroton. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Now we're extra-done. A little rocky but a good outcome. Move to close? Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Both LotLE and the Wikipedia project deserve, at the very least, an extremely stern and very unambiguous final warning to LotLE: his next display of tendentious editing or accusations against any editor, for anything except provable WP:3RR and/or provable personal attacks, will be interpreted as prima facie evidence of WP:DIS or WP:AGF respectively, and result in an immediate seven-day block and reconsideration of a topic ban. This warning should be in template form and placed on LotLE's User Talk page by an admin he trusts and respects, with instructions that it must not be removed, until the admin agrees that LotLE's misconduct problem has been resolved. This is not punitive. It is for the protection of the project and other editors. Agreed? 71.57.8.103 (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is going to do anything but laugh at your pot-stirring here. Put a sock in it sock.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that certainly is an interesting form of punishment. Tell us more, Nathaniel Hawthorne. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love these two responses. Not. Please review WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Regarding the sock accusations: I cordially invite you to post your smear campaign at WP:SSP, followed by RFCU, which are the proper venues for smear campaigns of this nature. You'll be thrown out of there with a reference to fishing expeditions, and neither 71 nor I will ever get an apology from any of you. Regarding 71's suggestion: it is constructive. It protects WP articles from the many edit wars started by LotLE. It protects new users, particularly IP editors, from being unfairly attacked by LotLE. And it doesn't impose a block or a topic ban (at least not immediately), so LotLE can keep pushing his POV if he's more careful about it and stays well within WP policy and guidelines concerning his conduct. Win-win-win all around. Regarding the cute little reference to The Scarlet Letter: unlike Hester Prynne, LotLE deserves it. It won't be on his User page, unlike the SSP template which I'm sure several of you are preparing for 71 and for me. And he can get rid of it, just as soon as he's proven that he won't misbehave again. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look -- you've edited under another account before, one i'd bet my eye teeth is banned (User:BryanFromPalatine is my bet -- every time his socks are run to ground he comes up with this "topic ban my enemies to protect the encyclopedia from them" shtick.). You and your "friend" the IP are on a campaign against an editor you disagree with here rather than discussing content there and you won't put the bone down. Assumptions of good faith are replaced, in time, with evidence of faith. The evidence here so far is that you're yet another MMORPG game player with an agenda, nursing old grievances. CU? What the heck for? It can't do anything to clear you. And the quacking gets louder still.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is not a newbie, and AGF is not a shield for what is perhaps the most absurd form of wiki-punishment I have ever seen proposed here. We're not going to hang a template around LotLE's or anyone else's neck until some appointed admin decides he's been punished enough. And in case you haven't noticed, not a single person has voiced support of your calls for LotLE's head over his editing. Safe to say that this An/I report has been rejected, and it should be marked as such so we can move on and stop making up fantasy punishments against users we don't like. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you agree that an indef block under WP:SOCK for "users we don't like" is a "fantasy punishment," and I trust that you won't be seeking one. Thanks for that at least. LotLE continues his false accusations and his incivility here, so doing nothing only means that his abusive behavior and edit-warring will continue indefinitely. I'm convinced you like it that way, as long as it doesn't target you or your friends directly. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Response from JohnWBarber

I need to respond to some things said about me in the subthread just above about my supposed "abusive" socking. My block led to a ton of abusive and incorrect statements about me here and elsewhere:

1. When I set up this and the other accounts, it was not forbidden by WP:SOCK to do so. This is the version of the policy at the time: [36] It's my fault for not keeping up better with the changes on that page, but I wasn't purposefully going against policy or being abusive in any way by doing what I did, and any statement to the contrary should be checked for wikilawyering. If anyone had just told me I was violating the policy, I'd have looked at it and fixed it, no block necessary.
2. Versageek says: This case sits astride the fine line between abusive socking & alternate accounts. No, Versageek, actually it didn't, and if the line is that "fine" it calls for questioning the person you suspect, not blocking that person for a week on a policy you've misapplied and which you should know has been changed greatly in the past year.
3. V also says: Using an alternate account for aggressive debates IS disruptive, The weakest word there is the one in capital letters. I was mistaken in using the JohnWBarber account instead of the Reconsideration account, and therefore violated WP:SOCK policy, but unintentionally (I didn't realize that would be a violation -- again, because I hadn't kept up with changes in WP:SOCK policy; my bad -- Reconsideration was my main account after Oct. 5). Also, "aggressive" debating is only disruptive if it's the type of thing that falls under WP:DISRUPT, and that just doesn't characterize my edits with JohnWBarber.
4. V also says: and being disruptive with an alternate account IS abusive - even if you've recently marked your main account 'retired'. Given Versageek's definition of "disruptive", that just isn't policy. Period. See WP:CLEANSTART. Versageek's statement is simply incompatable with it. If I'd made the same edits under the User:Reconsideration name, there would not even have been a technical violation. There's no other way to look at it. Facts are facts.
5. V also says: IMHO, using an alternate account for debate tends to lead to incivility since people don't worry as much about the 'reputation' of a throw-away account. In general, yes. But it matters that I wasn't uncivil, and JohnWBarber clearly wasn't and isn't a throwaway account.
6. V also says: I don't think it was User:Noroton's intention to be abusive - he just stumbled into that trap. That's an odd statement for someone who imposed a one-week block. Perhaps that's why it got no support.
7. Wikidemon says: Segregating multiple accounts so that some of them can make controversial edits without casting the others in a bad light is what the policy is all about. Actually only one account is allowed to engage in controversy -- the main one -- when you have more than one; any others are necessarily segregated from that. One thing I did wrong was contributing to AfDs with two accounts instead of one (explicitly disallowed by WP:SOCK since Oct. 3). Oh wait, there was 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. That was an experiment on a controversial page where User:Reconsideration edited sections that were hotly disputed. My edits stuck and seemed to calm the disruption, and the article still looks not much different from the way I left it, I think. It was a controversial subject, but my edits don't seem to have been all that controversial. I'm pretty proud of that one.
8. W also says: Some of the edits under the Noroton account [...] were in response to outrageous behavior by editors including Wikidemon, but it's water under the bridge. I resigned from that account on Oct. 5.
9. W also says: Some of the edits under other account names were controversial in their own way but in different topic areas. Incorrect, unless some rather innocuous edits by Reconsideration in a few recent AfDs are "controversial".
10. Tarc says: Once again WP:AGF is stretched to its breaking point to cover an abusive editor's bad behavior, as this looks like one giant spin job by Noroton to me, to cover his ass. There comes a point, even at ANI, where an editor should be blocked for constant incivility. I never attacked Tarc, and he has no reason to be spewing out most of those adjectives. It's time an admin looked over his recent history of comments on his talk pages and give him a civility warning. He's constantly over the top and lowering the level of civility in the discussions he participates in. Notice that there's nothing for me to refute here because the entire sentence is hot air.
11. Sorry this is long, but so was the amount of abuse hurled at me for being wrongly labeled an "abusive sock" by Versageek. I made some technical violations of WP:SOCK because I didn't monitor the changes to that policy enough over the past year. Not one of those violations was intentional, hurt anybody, harmed the encyclopedia or avoided legitimate scrutiny under the terms of that policy. My edits at the Shankbone DRV included some sharp criticism of the closing admin for the AfD, but they weren't uncivil. You need something more than expressing strong disagreement to be disruptive.
12. I don't think anyone has brought up the idea that some of us on Wikipedia have a WP:COI problem regarding David Shankbone. It probably hasn't occurred to anyone because we think about the WP editor, but the article is a subject that we can have a conflict of interest over if we're either very close or very antagonistic to Shankbone (or somehow would benefit or be hurt by the existence of the article, although I don't see how). It's worth thinking about in these cases. I may have a COI for the DRV and I'll post a message about that there. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludvikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears not to be abiding by what he agreed to at the close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive568#Historical revisionism: User:North Shoreman & User:Philip Baird Shearer v. User:Ludvikus, namely this post. Whether it's because he doesn't understand what he agreed to here there and to the unblocking admin, User:PhilKnight, or he is intentionally violating what he agreed to, is unclear.

Another editor, User:Loremaster in off-wiki and on-wiki correspondance, has requested that Ludvikus be banned. I'm not sure that's necessary, yet, but something needs to be done. It's not easy to find, as he archives his talk page after only 24 hours, but the history of his talk page makes it clear that, even after the last ANI link referred to above, he believes he can do anything unless there's consensus against his actions, which he defines as a majority opposing his actions, including himself as approving his actions.

The locus of the present dispute is New World Order (conspiracy theory) and a few other articles related to New World Order and to conspiracy theory. Normally, I would think a topic ban might be sufficient, but it seems to me that, considering his edit history, the problems would likely occur anywhere he edited a controversial article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Quote:

Thank you for your note. All three of you are fine editors that unfortunately cannot see eye to eye. I am going to do a little more research and see if I can come up with something that would be helpful to all. Sincerely Ludvikus I am sorry you have to continue facing personal attacks from these users. I don't know how you manage to maintain your level head in all of this. I would be pretty upset if I were you. I am heading to the library right now, but I will catch up with you on the article talk. - 4twenty42o (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That's my response. I've followed every rule of Wikipedia. But am the victim of one editor, and his side kik, while the consensus is in my favor. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I, User:Loremaster, have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 5 years. During this time, I have improved the quality of numerous articles from a relatively neutral point of view despite my secular rational humanist perspective. The fact that some of these articles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article demonstrates my general knowledge and respect for Wikipedia guidelines and standards. And I have been praised for my work by people from both sides of any given issue. However, I have also had to endure every violation of behavioral guidelines one can imagine including insults, personal attacks, threats, and harassement but I'm still here despite all that abuse. That being said, regardless of how diplomatic Ludvikus might be, his comments on the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) page (all the damning ones have been archived) have convinced me (and probably a few reasonable observers of our discussions) that he is an extremely disruptive editor who, despite his good intentions and occasional constructive edits/suggestions, can seriously damage the quality of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article and other articles he has taken interest in if he has his way. I think he should be permanently banned from Wikipedia because he insists on revamping articles despite the fact that he 1) confesses to being ignorant of the subject of articles he takes interest in, 2) confesses to not having read nor understood these articles in their entirety, 3) doesn't know or understand basic Wikipedia guidelines, 4) is an extremely bad editor when it comes to style, and, most important of all, 5) can't be reasoned with. Mea culpa: I am guilty of repeatedly engaging in personal attacks against him due to my frustration over not knowing how to get through to him. I therefore sincerely apologize to him and the entire Wikipedia community. --Loremaster (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'd suggest that Ludvikus get at least break from articles to do with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, broadly construed. Their focus is too intense for them to take a step back and see what others are saying, and perhaps they need some time to edit other articles to gain more familiarity with less heated subject matter. I am involved with Ludvikus, but not in relation to the article in question. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I only notified User:Ludvikus and User:Loremaster. User:PhilKnight, the admin who unblocked Ludvikus most of the way through his 2 year block, suggested I post here. If anyone wishes to notify the blocking admin or the participants in the last ANI thread, please go ahead. I have a browser incompatibility which prevents me from using WP:AWB, which together with WP:TWINKLE, are the only local semi-bots I have. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My comment above was left on Ludvikus' talk page and it applies here as well. I have an opinion but I do not feel that it is my place to state them until I have all of the facts. I am on my way out of the house but I will revisit this topic when I get done with my research. - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Myself also being a major participant in recent discussions involving this editor, it is my observation that Ludvikus has been the target of repeated personal attacks as well as what could be construed as hounding. Much of this appears to stem from Ludvicus' multitude of proposals, many of which appear to be made with (putting it softly,) a less than complete understanding of the topic of discussion, or of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. In response to these stressful conditions, Ludvikus has, in my opinion, behaved exceptionally. Ludvikus has actively avoided responding with personal attacks;he's shown the capacity to understand arguments backed by policy, and modify his own arguments accordingly; he's shown the capacity to offer and accept compromise; and he's shown the capacity to back down when consensus is obviously against him. I'd love for Ludvikus to take greater care in reading and understanding guidelines and policies, and take more time in reading, understanding, and responding to arguments against his positions. But I fail to see any need for administrative action against him. -Verdatum (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I reject the over-the-top accusation of "hounding", I actually agree with Verdatum that Ludvikus has in fact behaved exceptionally in response to my repeated personal attacks (which I maintain where justified but unacceptable according to Wikipedia behavioral guidelines). However, I strongly disagree with the notion that Ludvikus has truly shown the capacity to back down when consensus is obviously against him. Putting aside the fact that User:Arthur Rubin has been repeatedly trying to explain to him the Wikipedia concept of consensus to no avail, Ludvikus has in fact shown the tendency to back down temporarily only to come back days or weeks later to argue the same discredited point as if the previous conversations had never happened all the while claiming that the consensus is in his favor when it was in fact against him. --Loremaster (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hounding claim made in relation to this edit/thread, nothing to do with Loremaster. -Verdatum (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The extent of my "hounding" Ludvikus is that his Talk page is on my watchlist and I reminded him of his promise to avoid confrontations.
        So long as I'm being accused of hounding him, I might as well mention that I'm a member of WikiProject Jewish history, so I was informed that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was undergoing featured article review and I commented on it. Ludvikus is one of the main reasons that article is going to lose its FA status. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 22:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ludvikus revisited (arbitrary break 1)

• Comment My apologies for the delay in a more detailed response. I have been watching the New World Order article for quite some time now and until now I have remained pretty silent on the matter due to my total lack of knowledge on the subject. However, as this is a controversial topic, that attracts much attention, I have been spending more time researching the topic. To make myself clear to all, Ludvikus and I are not acquainted at all but I am stepping up here to say this. I reverted an edit that USER:Loremaster apparently made using an IP sock in which his edit summary he referred to Ludvikus as a "disruptive editor". That in itself seemed to be a personal attack against Ludvikus. I reverted the changes and asked others to reach a consensus before any more reversions and was ignored.

The topic is a conspiracy "theory". In other words no one has the facts, because they do not exists out right. Loremaster appears to be trying to own this article to the point that any edit or suggestion not made by him or others that he "trusts" is reverted or ignored. This is all my opinion and as an open mined individual I am open to others interpretations. However hounding Ludvikus and attempting to have him banned is just plain wrong. While Ludvikus obviously has some issues with how the article is written, he also appears to want to reach a consensus. I have not and will not troll through every little comment and point fingers at anyone. Nor will I stand by and allow comments like the one Loremaster or the anon IP (presuming they are one in the same) made go unnoticed. As a testament to his integrity Ludvikus has not reported the apparent use of a sock by Loremaster nor has be reported (to my knowledge) the verbal abuse he has suffered from multiple editors. I have no agenda or personal qualms with the article or the editors, I am simply pointing out that out of Ludvikus' many faults he appears to only edit in good faith and while his edits may very well be wrong (I don't believe anyone knows for sure) they are not malicious. - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Due to problems with my home computer, I often edit the New World Order conspiracy theory article anonymously from IP User:216.99.45.48. This is not a case of suck puppetry since I've informed most regular contributors of this article that I do this. So this is a non-issue.
2. The fact that Ludvikus insists on revamping an article whose topic he confesses to be ignorant of and whose content he refuses to read while lacking a basic understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines makes a disruptie editor.
3. I revert Ludvikus' edits because New World Order conspiracy theory is a controversial topic that is be under dispute, which means that substantial changes must be discussed on the article's talk page before they are made. Ludvikus failed to do this.
4. Putting aside the the world does contain facts that either support or refute claims made by conspiracy theorists, an encyclopedic article on New World Order conspiracy theory can only be on reliable sources which all happen to be academics and journalists who have studied this topic from a rational-skeptical perspective.
5. I don't own the New World Order conspiracy theory article but I've openly declared my interest in collaborating with anyone in order to make the article well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough for Good and Featured Article status. Unfortunately, this topic by its very nature attract many cranks who want to and have tried to edit the article in order to promote their pet conspiracy theories without ever supporting any of their claims with reliable sources (which is obviously impossible for them). This has obviously made me very protective of this article. However, when I've been accused of trying to own the New World Order conspiracy theory article in the past, User:Dougweller said on 29 July 2009: "I would use the word responsibility, not ownership. It's not a bad thing. I was wondering about it when [Loremaster] first arrived, but not now. In fact, I'm pleased someone is looking after this article, it needs it."
6. Since 4twenty42o has not familiarized with all the disputes that Ludvikus has caused he no way of knowing that Ludvikus 1) confesses to being ignorant of the subject of articles he takes interest in, 2) confesses to not having read nor understood these articles in their entirety, 3) doesn't know or understand basic Wikipedia guidelines, 4) is an extremely bad editor when it comes to style, and, most important of all, 5) has demonstrated many times that he can't be reasoned with on some issues he comes fixated on.

--Loremaster (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I came upon Ludvikus when he appeared on my talkpage re some issue involving User:BrownHairedGirl (can't remember what the specific issue was). I suspect English isn't his mother tongue which may account for some of the eccentric editing and misunderstandings. At first I had no idea what he was complaining about but in fairness he was polite and calm when one made an attempt to understand what his point was. (He felt I was getting better treatment from an Admin than he had). I'd appeal for some allowance to be made for his poor English; Wiki isn't an English exam after all. More banning is not a proportionate response in this case. Sarah777 (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm somewhat at a loss here. The problem with Ludvikus' activity on Wikipedia is much more complicated than the usual highly disruptive user. Ludvikus is a fabulous gatherer of information; I don't know why he's working here on Wikipedia, with its stringent rules against original research, rather than somewhere that he can work expansively and broadly in his areas of interests. But coordinating his particular style(s) with Wikipedia guidelines has proven to be very difficult, not in the least because of the prodigious number of edits he makes. He's hard to keep up with; I think if someone sat down with him (virtually or actually) and walked him through Wikipedia style guidelines, and how to follow them, the attempt could be successful. But that would take an enormous amount of time; I certainly am not going to volunteer to do that. When Ludvikus was banned for two years, a large part of it was because he was wasting the time of so many of our volunteers. A lot of editors simply give up on working in Ludvikus' fields of interest because it's so frustrating, leaving important articles such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the hands of fewer editors than it needs. I've not much to say about Ludvikus' social awkwardness (to put it politely); I suspect he simply doesn't understand how his curiosity about the motivations of other editors is something that he really should keep to himself. In the meantime, he's damaging articles. Is this correctable? I'd hope so, but I'm skeptical. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The diagnosis of 'wasting the time of other volunteers' seems apt, in the one case where I noticed Ludvikus' activities. He participated in the unblock discussion at User talk:Gaunkars of Goa. Though most any editor is welcome to join these discussions and give their opinion, he gave many signs that he didn't understand what was going on. This did not deter him from extensive participation (58 edits altogether) and adding general confusion. If he would listen to feedback, things would be different. It's hard to think of any action short of a ban of Ludvikus that would actually address the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I also was involved in the Gaunkars of Goa talk page discussion that EdJohnston refers to directly above. I was notified of this ANI discussion otherwise I wouldn't have seen this. Ludvikus didn't do anything in the Gaunkars of Goa discussion that should result in a ban or block. He merely wanted to discuss the possibility of unblock, which should take place for all blocked users, at least mentally. He finally concluded that the user's block was justified. An indefinite block is a very serious matter. Fixed term blocks, even lengthy ones, such as 1 year, seem to be not used much in Wikipedia so the next best thing is to allow discussion. I don't know Ludvikus in any other situation so I can't comment on those other complaints. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm completely uninvolved. I'm looking through his contribs and I'm not seeing any huge offense. What I see is maybe a large knot of miscommunication. I'm absolutely certain that continued discussion here - particularly for issues that are primarily content-oriented - will be, in hindsight, a giant waste of time. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in Archive 3 of Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory), you will find that the problem is far greater than mere miscommunication. Ludvikus insists on revamping the New World Order conspiracy theory article when he 1) confesses to being ignorant of the subject of this article, 2) confesses to not having read nor understood the article in its entirety before critiquing it, 3) doesn't know or understand basic Wikipedia guidelines, 4) is an extremely bad editor when it comes to style, and, most important of all, 5) has demonstrated many times that he can't be reasoned with on some issues he comes fixated on. --Loremaster (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Arthur Rubin" - "overdue for recall": [37] "about this much-blocked admin": Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)--Ludvikus (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blocks listed in Arthur Rubin's block log were over a year ago - why do you think it is appropriate to dig that up now? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems fair enough. Ludvikus's 2-year block was over a year ago, too. If he hadn't continued the same sort of activities which led to the block, we wouldn't be discussing the matter here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not quite; his block lasted until last month - yours expired last year closer to the time at which it was imposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I only know of Ludvikus from the Protocols article, so my comments reflect that limitation. It may be true that Protocols was considered as featured article quality, but it was not a good article. It had a lot of rigid assertions from traditional sources and essentially ignored modern scholarship as by Hagemeister and De Michelis. It badly needs someone like Ludvikus to bring it up to date. It isn't there yet. Ludvikus has a uniquely intense style that is hard to keep up with, and he doesn't take kindly to ignorants, but I don't see any cause for sanctions. Zero^talk 09:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I do not think reimposing the ban on Ludvikus is justified at this time. Regarding The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, this is the one area where Ludvikus is actually doing something useful - before his unban, the article had degenerated very badly. I encouraged Ludvikus to do something about this, and after some initial reluctance, he is doing so. Please do not ban him from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and related articles. Ludvikus would be easier to work with if he learned to use the sandbox and show preview more often to develop his edits. The only times when I have felt Ludvikus should be banned were when he made unjustified accusations of anti-semitism against me. He has apologised and said that he was mistaken. If he starts making this kind of unfounded accusation again, by all means ban him. But he is not doing it now, so it is not justified to ban him now.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I haven't the slightest clue as to what's happening. I need to be briefed, as sorting through all this, would take me the rest of this month. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have always found Ludvikus to be very polite in his dealings with me. I do not feel he should be banned from Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think there's really much doubt in my mind that Ludvikus is generally polite in his dealings - at least the discussions on my talkpage have certainly been that way He even gave me an admin barnstar, even though I have yet to pass an RfA. I have seen his interactions on a variety of pages where he can get frustrated when he feels he's being dismissed - and I have seen other editors frustrated when Ludvikus "just doesn't get it." Really, he needs guidance more than anything, as I do not think he's trying to be disruptive, he's quite genuinely trying to help. None of his actions so far that I have seen since his return have been truly disruptive, more ... näive ... for lack of a better word. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think he should be banned since he is trying to help the project. I agree that in general people need to learn how to work better and get along better, that's all of us. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps a mentor would help. He has shown he doesn't understand WP:CONSENSUS, what constitutes a personal attack, (or, in fact, most Wikipedia policies and guidelines), but it's possible that he could be a net gain to Wikipedia if someone could explain to him what he's doing wrong in a way he could understand. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What would help, Arthur, since you're an administrator, would have been if you had put a stop to the dementor who had summoned you in the first place. It appears that you are saying that what I experienced were not WP:Personal attacks, when in fact the person who inflicted them has apologized for them to me above. I therefore I find it impossible to believe in your WP:Good faith. What I need from you is a demonstration of your Good Faith. Have, or have I, or have I not been, submitted to an incredible amount of Personal Attacks, which you witnessed, but did nothing to stop? If you admit that fact - that you did nothing to stop that, we can all move forward for the Good of Wikipedia. It takes an incredible amount of will power not to respond in kind. It's exhausting, provocative, and disruptive. And you now are trying to tell me that I do not know the meaning of personal attacks. It's infuriating to hear that from you - a Wikipedia Administrator! --Ludvikus (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is what I expect from you, Arthur Rubin, to enforce everywhere you appear because you're an Administrator:

"Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct, one of Wikipedia's five pillars.

The civility policy is a standard of conduct, that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact:

editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect.

Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely,

calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment.

This policy applies to all editing on Wikipedia, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries,

and any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians."

• Question1: Is that Arthur Rubin what I cannot get where you appear as an editor and Administrator? Is that what I do not understand? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He reminds me a lot of User:Badagnani, and a little of User:Fabartus: prolific, passionate, and in constant personality-clashes and policy-disagreements. The most clueful thing I've read about these 'types' of contributors, is User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem (recommended reading). There is no easy solution. A mentor is probably the only way forward, but I doubt it would work unless attempted in-person (wiki-conversations are too disjointed and glacially-paced to change stubborn worldviews.). His subjects of interest seem to be mostly controversial/charged, which doesn't help matters. [Disclaimer: I haven't interacted with him in years, and have not looked into any of his recent edits. I am responding here to his canvassed request on my talkpage. Consider this an outside/abstract view.] -- Quiddity (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question2: Arthur Rubin can you explain this to me: "I therefore sincerely apologize to him and the entire Wikipedia community." Why is User:Loremaster apologizing to me? Does she have anything to apologize for? You're the Administrator who was intimately involved it the editing. Is there something about her apology you wish to clarify as it relates to Personal Attacks (which you say I do not understand)? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have apologize for some personal attacks (such as when I called you an “idiot”), when I'm arguing that the cause of one of our disputes is that you don't understand basic Wikipedia guidelines and I actually provide evidence that you don't, this is not a personal attack as much as it is discussing a problem. --Loremaster (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ludvikus revisited (arbitrary break 2)

• Comment: User:216.99.45.48 = User:Loremaster. This has been another problem. Loremaster maintains that he's not a WP:Sockpuppet. But at the same time I'm accused of not knowing basic guidelines because I've computed the Consensus correctly. But there has not been more than 3 or 4 editors around at any given period of hours. So the fact the editor who "owns" this article must not be counted twice has a significant bearing here. Why Arthur Rubin refuses to acknowledge this issue is beyond my comprehension. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to problems with my home computer, I often edit the New World Order conspiracy theory article anonymously from IP User:216.99.45.48. This is not a case of suck puppetry since I've informed most regular contributors of this article that I do this. So this is a non-issue. --Loremaster (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In my opinion, Ludvikus has repeatedly violated the promises he made in his unblock request a month ago, and any admin would be justified in restoring the 2 year block, which has another 7 months to go. I have suggested to PhilKnight, the unblocking admin, that he do so, but I believe that given the clear violation of promises, any other admin could equally well do so. (I am totally uninvolved beyond being annoyed by all this unnecessary drama.) Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, just because I unblocked, it doesn't imply that I get to decide whether he should be reblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification: This is merely a dispute between two editors, myself and User:Arthur Rubin whose been also editing New World Order (conspiracy theory). I believe that editor User:Loremaster and I are working things out at the moment on that page. To be Blocked because of a difference of opinion with one editor for two years, while that editor was himself blocked for 24 hours severral times is excessive. I think this "drama" is caused by Arthur Rubin - not me. Why should I be blocked for what he himself has caused? Loosie, what's your beef? Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Why must I suffer such an indignity from you [38]? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but this is not "merely a dispute between two editors". If that were the case, it would be easy enough to deal with. It's not just about one article. It is, however, about just one person: you. It is about the behavior of one person: you. I'm glad that there are people who have worked with you and not felt the pain many other of us have. Your characterization of your earlier block is also incorrect; it was not the work of one person -- it was the action of one person, supported by the community. It doesn't matter whether someone who has blocked you has himself been blocked; that's not what this is about. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is being worked out. I'm simply compromising on some minor issues because I'm tired on the toll these disputes are having on my mood in the real word offline the past few weeks. Let me repeat: I can provide evidence (from Archive 3 of Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)) Ludvikus insists on revamping the New World Order conspiracy theory article when he 1) confesses to being ignorant of the subject of this article, 2) confesses to not having read nor understood the article in its entirety before critiquing it(!), 3) doesn't know or understand basic Wikipedia guidelines, 4) is an extremely bad editor when it comes to style, and, most important of all, 5) has demonstrated many times that he can't be reasoned with on some issues he comes fixated on. I cannot and will not collaborate with someone like this. Short of having him banned, the only compromise that I am willing to accept is Ludvikus taking a break from editing the New World Order conspiracy theory article until he can demonstrate that he 1) has read the article in it's entirety, 2) has read some of the primary reliable sources on which the article is based on, 3) has been mentored enough that he understands basic Wikipedia guidelines related to the disputes we keep having. --Loremaster (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I feel a sort of a cognitive dissonance reading complains about Ludvikus. On one hand many people whose judgment I trust complain that he is a strong drain of resources, almost a troll and reading this as an admin I feel an urge to block the disruptor. On the other hand I as editor collaborated with Ludvikus a lot, mostly about Russian biographies, establishments and periodicals somehow related to the history of the Protocols (many biographies were potentially quite controversial: the people can be seen as evil Anti-Semites by some readers and estimated religious figures, even recognized as saints or heroes of the anti-Bolshevik resistance to other readers). From my own experience I can certify that Ludvikus has been very easy and fun to work with, he is very enthusiastic, and IMHO a great asset to Wikipedia. Some of his work on verification of the Russian 19th century and early 20th century primary sources had some OR elements but IMHO was useful and still within the wiki-pale. In short, as an editor I feel the need to praise and protect Ludvikus. I do not how to consolidate those two surges. I propose myself as a mentor of Ludvikus or as a mediator in Ludvikus-related conflicts if this would help. As a side note, because for some reasons (completely unrelated to Ludvikus) I am not working for the project as intensively as I used to so I might need a co-mentor if I am accepted as a Ludvikus mentor Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am not all surprised that there are many people who have come to Ludvikus's defense. I probably would have been one of them if my interaction with him had stopped after our first discussions on the Talk:Conspiracy theory page. However, our disputes on the archived Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) page have destroyed the good first impression I had of him. After spending a year meticulously expanding and improving an article, is there anyone here that would collaborate with someone who insists on revamping this article when he or she not only confesses to being ignorant of the subject of this article but stubbornly refuses to read the article in its entirety before critiquing it?!? It got so bad that I started wondering if I was getting punked!--Loremaster (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loremaster, don't get me wrong - I can fully understand the toll that your interactions with Ludvikus can take. If he was someone who I worked with in real life, I'd be exasperated at times. If he has a distinct task, he'll work well on them - personal interactions however can be a challenge. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. User:Alex Bakharev, you are such a gentleman. I have a very nice impression of working with you in translating the Russian of Serge Nilus for The Protocols article years ago. I don't know exactly what being a "Mentor" means, but to have you as one of them - that would be 100% fine by me. And it would be great if I could find someone else too. I just do not know how to handle such (I'm not going to characterize the editor) an editor as User:Loremaster. I have a vast knowledge of Western history, and certainly that of my own country, the United States of America, and although I haven't read all the NWO conspiracists, neither has User:Loremaster, and to portray me here as effectively ignorant, is now a milder form of a Personal Attack. This Content-dispute is between myself and Loremaster, and for reason known only to him, Administrator User:Arthur Rubin supports Loremaster something like 95% of the time. I've sought the explicit advise of User:Jpgordon. But all he told me was seek Consensus. So there are other editors at New World Order (conspiracy theory) (and I've taken that into account into the computation of Consensus, as required). Therefore, the consensus is not in the favor of Arthur Rubin and Loremaster - I've been extremely cautious about that. Furthermore, the article's Consensus computation has been complicated by the fact that User Loremaster uses another, numbered account. Having discovered that I commuted the Consensus accordingly. Unfortunately, Arthur Rubin refuses to acknowledge this discrepancy, and insists on announcing, falsely that I do not know what consensus means. I think it means that a User should not be counted TWICE just because he has another account. I am deeply disappointed in Administrator User:Jpgordon for not coming to my defense since this is precisely the issue involved here. I've learned a great deal about Wikipedia since my return - that's why I have so many wonderful editors coming to my defense here now. But that Administrator Jpgordon does not see this is a deep, deep, disappointment to me personally. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to problems with my home computer, I often edit the New World Order conspiracy theory article anonymously from IP User:216.99.45.48. This is not a case of suck puppetry since I've informed most regular contributors of this article that I do this. I have never used an anonymous IP to misinform people about consensus. Only comments on a talk page are taken into account when trying to determine consensus and I've never posted anonymously on this talk page. Even if I wanted to, the browser on my home computer prevents me from editing Wikipedia talk page. What I have done is revert your edits anonymously with an edit summary that was too brief, which created confusion in the mind of 4twenty42o since he is unfamiliar with our disputes. This has obviously nothing to with Ludvikus's convoluted understanding of Wikipedia's concept of consensus. I rest my case. --Loremaster (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • (ecx2 - please use the PREVIEW button) Ludvikus, can I say that you're sometimes the author of your own "issues". Earlier in this section you stated that Arthur Rubin is waaaay overdue for admin recall. When you're having issues, that's the wrong path to take. Imagine being mugged, and when the police come to investigate you keep saying "you cops are assholes" - how much help are you going to get? Well, you're here, the issue is being investigated, and you're claiming police brutality ... that's not good for your cause. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Arthur Rubin is a third editor of this article. Don't you see the WP:Conflict of Interest? In my opinion he's 1,000 time more of the problem - because he encouraged the Personal Attacks of Loremaster - by doing noting about it. Haven't you heard of corrupt cops? --Ludvikus (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I'm quite convinced of that. In my opinion, I think I can work things out with User:Loremaster. I don't have any problem with any other editor that I think I cannot solve - if you could only get Arthur Rubin off my back. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the real world, the thing to do is to keep your mouth shot while in police custody, get the conviction thrown out of court, expunge the record, and after all that, file a Police Report for police brutality (it does exist, doesn't it?). Accordingly, notice the confession and apology at the very top of this page - the admission by Loremaster of having engaged in personal attacks upon me. Had Loremaster not done that, I might have been able to adopt to his idiosyncrasies. So the question is (or should be) what did editor Arthur Rubin do to put a stop to that extremely disruptive Personal Attacks? Not really "nothing." He decide to place my name on this Noticeboard. My understanding is that our founder, Jimbo Wales, maintains that an Administrator is merely another editor, but with special privileges. According, IMHO, the problem here is just one editor - Arthur Rubin. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -I think some sort of mentorship for Ludvikus is a worthwhile idea, so if Alex Bakharev is volunteering, I guess we should take him up on his kind offer. I think also that if Alex becomes Ludvikus's mentor, he should be able to add articles to the list of those which Ludvikus should avoid. PhilKnight (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: But if he becomes my mentor, why would there be a need for any articles for me to avoid? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO. You still have previous article restrictions that were placed on you. Continue to live by those. I would hazard a guess that the requirement for a mentor has delayed your return to those other articles. I truly hope that we're going to end up with a positive ending on this whole thing...please. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I cannot and will not collaborate with someone like you because of the reasons I have explained. --Loremaster (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation: At the moment the article in question here, New World Order (conspiracy theory), there's an editor I'm trying to calm down because he's the victim of Loremaster's characterization of him as a "crank." His name is User:Batvette. And he's additional proof that User:Loremaster is not on the side of the Consensus, as User:Jpgordon emphasized we should follow. This user is extremely upset by being depicted as a "crank" by User Loremaster. Nevertheless, he has raised an excellent point there: that C. Wright Mills had written a book, in 1956, titled The Power Elite. The point being made - implicitly - is that it's far too easy to dismiss critics as conspiracists when they question our democracy. Another example is Noam Chomsky. Unfortunately, User:Arthur Rubin has done nothing - and is still not doing anything - to protect this user from the Personal Attacks which he's being subjected to at this moment by User:Loremaster. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the fact that I stand by my accusation that User:Batvette is a crank, Ludvikus's comments proves again that he doesn't understand the concept of consensus which obviously has nothing to do with the dispute I am having with Batvette. --Loremaster (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Then please explain it to me. I'd be extremely grateful for it. And immediately apologize to you for anything due to my misunderstanding. But this general characterization is typical of my interaction with you, User Loremaster. Please, please, be specific, so I could possibly learn from your clarification. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT going to get sucked into another absurd debate with you. I am simply refuting claims you make so that people know the facts before making a judgment as to whether or not you should be banned. --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And isn't calling another user (not me), in Good standing, a "crank," a WP:Personal Attack? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a personal attack, which I do not apologize for, because it is justified in light of documented history of cranky behavior by this individual. That being said, it is inappropriate to drag Batvette into this since this discussion is about whether or not YOU should be banned. --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But in fact, at this very moment, it is you User:Loremaster who are causing Disruption on the page in question by clottering it with your vicious attacks on User:Batvette, so it is You who should be banned, and I should be given an appropriate Wikipedia:Barnster for defending Wikipedia against you, and defending User:Batvette against the same general sort of Personal Attacks I've experienced from you. You make working at Wikipedia a very miserable place. And my compassion goes to User:Batvette: [39].

(outdent) As the concept of banning Ludvikus seems to have flown out the window long ago (by consensus), I recommend you stop focusing on that, and focus on the mentoring concept at hand. Continuing to float that idea is merely raising Ludvikus' objections - pretty standard operating procedures from most of his interactions, unless you failed to notice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the final judgement of administrators (which seems to not have been expressed yet) was more important than a consensus by editors who are not really familiar with the disputes around the New World Order conspiracy talk page. That being said, if the conclusion of all of this is that Ludvikus will be mentored and prevented from editing the New World Order conspiracy theory article, I can accept and live with that. --Loremaster (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With Mentoring, there will not be any need for preventing me from editing the article which you currently own. The most essential element of my Mentoring should be to teach me how to handle editors like you. I have absolutely no idea about that. I cannot understand what principle of Wikipedia permits you to get away with using the Talk page of the NWO CT to prove that User:Batvette is a "crank." That's one of the first things I would like to be Mentored in. I remember that it took me quite a while to establish that I was not a "crank" (in your judging eyes). And it was an infuriating uphill battle. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will always remained convinced that you are exactly what I judge you to be. Everything you have said on this page has only reinforced my opinion. That being said, we have both made our cases. Let's now both shut up and wait for the final judgement. --Loremaster (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ludvikus revisited (arbitrary break 3)

• Comment. I think a lot of people who have experience with Ludvikus and praise his knowledge but think this altercation is distracting should realize that it wouldn't be that way except he made the mistake of attempting to contribute to a page whose primary editor makes no bones about attempting article ownership at any cost. I've been subjected to some of the most abusive behaviour possible that he in turn claimed was justified by a misrepresented assessment of my beliefs, and a claim that I had a history of vicious personal attacks on him that when pushed to produce turned out to be completely false. He feels he has the right to assess the intents and personal beliefs of any potential editors and if they disagree on the article's presentation or content, misrepresent them as a "crank" and prevent them from contributing to the page. He tried that angle with Ludvikus and as you can see he will not be satisfied until he can keep him away from "his" page. Contrary to the notion the page as it stood was by "consensus" many potential editors (as shown in the archives of spring and summer) had a problem with the way the article addressed the issues and rather than attempt to work with or educate anyone he'd rather rudely run them off. Yes the article has improcved greatly but if that were the sole purpose of wiki we'd just call it Encyclopedia B-youknowtheone and print it up and tell everyone to keep their hands off. Summarizing, I can see from my perspective Ludvikus is kind of a PITA. However so is the guy he is arguing with and if there is a big differencce it's that one is incredibly rude and abusive and really won't let anyone near "his" article and the other is not. My 2 cents. Batvette (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to fall in the trap of arguing with Batvette. Reasonable people who want to get a full picture of who this individual is can simply read all (not just some) his comments in the Archive 3 of the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) page. That being said, NO ONE has or can contradict the following 3 facts: Ludvikus has insisted in the past on revamping the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article despite the fact that he 1) confesses to being ignorant of the subject of New World Order conspiracism, 2) confesses to not having read nor understood the article in its entirety, 3) doesn't know or understand basic Wikipedia guidelines. As for the repeated accusation that I act as if I own the New World Order conspiracy theory article, User:Dougweller said it best on 29 July 2009 when he said: "I would use the word responsibility, not ownership. It's not a bad thing. I was wondering about it when [Loremaster] first arrived, but not now. In fact, I'm pleased someone is looking after this article, it needs it." I rest my case. --Loremaster (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said we should both shut up? Since you didn't do that, I'd like to say (1) I'm now certain that I know more about said Subject than you do, and (2) obviously I could use some Mentoring because my understanding of Wiki policy is that you are in violation of it as enumerated above, yet you are being permitted to continue in your course of what appears to me improper WP behavior. I therefore could use Mentoring which would teach me how to handle editors like you, User:Loremaster. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Batvette. When I talk about shutting up, I was referring to both of us engaging in discussion. The end. --Loremaster (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfect display of the problems an editor of the article in question(ludvikus or myself) faces when its owner (loremaster) sees someone wants to contribute to it. Rather than address any issues he (loremaster) goes straight to an ad hominem personal attack, groundless as he can only allude to some imagined heinous conduct on my part in an archive, assuming rightfully that nobody will take the time to go poring through an archive to figure out who batvette is and what his personal beliefs are, which of course is irrelevant. If you want to see what happens when pushed to provide examples see this-[[40]](see history of vicious personal attacks, LOL.) which he also expects no one to check. Why this editor thinks he can misrepresent someone to marginalize their ability to contribute to wiki is beyond me. As for Ludvikus being "ignorant", I think it's beyond saying he is of sufficient intelligence to have by now picked it up. The wiki policy page on article ownership does have such a tactic listed as example of how a problem editor will defend "his" page. It's just wrong. Batvette (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so, and, User:Loremaster, that - above - gave you an oppotunity to depict me as ignorant of the subject matter. This is in fact a Prime example of how you operate. You systematically attempt to depict those you disagree with, summarily as either "cranks" or "Ignoramuses" or simply "ignorant." Unfortunately, some believe what you say, while others are extremely Disrupted by such improper commentaries by you. My understanding of Wiki policy is that you should keep such observations to yourself. Or perhaps write a gentle comment on the Talk page of the User. Casual readers and editors do not need your help in being informed as to who is or is not a crank or ignorant by the clutter you produce on the Talk page of the article which you own. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of hypocrisy I wanted to finish by addressing the relevant issue that Loremaster mentions- As for the repeated accusation that I act as if I own the New World Order conspiracy theory article, User:Dougweller said it best on 29 July 2009 when he said: "I would use the word responsibility, not ownership. It's not a bad thing. I was wondering about it when [Loremaster] first arrived, but not now. In fact, I'm pleased someone is looking after this article, it needs it." I rest my case. that's fine in context of the article being a magnet for CT vandals coming in and defacing it. However even if DougWeller is so impressed with you he puts a glass slipper on your foot and brings you home in a pumpkin at midnight, it doesn't affect Wiki policy on article ownership, which in the past your statements discouraging other editors could have been lifted verbatim off that policy page examples list. (as seen on archive page 3)It's rather bizarre to be so proud of a violation of wiki community policy which is of such a self centered nature. I feel the article can improve with the diversity of other editors reflected.Batvette (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification: Batvette means that Loremaster is Cinderella, not me (but that's OK. I like Princesses better than Princes). --Ludvikus (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that is correct, blame my tendancy to use superfluous verbiage. Batvette (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I will never deny having engaged in personal attacks (which I believe were justified to expose some editors as being possible and actual sources of disruption), I have ALWAYS taken the time to logically reply and refute the convoluted arguments people like Batvette, and, to a lesser extent, Ludvikus, have made when it comes to their criticisms of the article or the proposed changes. People don't have to take my word for it! They can simply go through Archive 3 of the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory). I only have one question for Ludvikus: Have you publicly said that you refused to read the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article in it's entirety before criticizing it and proposed revamping it? YES or NO. --Loremaster (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a discussion in Archive 3 of the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory):

What wiki policy page addresses baseless accusations of personal attacks to discredit an editor and distract from a discussion? Loremaster did it repeatedly on the talk page and when pushed to produce them he was of course completely fabricating them. Now here you are with your own tired charade about ONE comment made months ago where I called his ARGUMENTS shifty and dishonest, and since they WERE the attempt to parse words then and repeat the allegation of personal attacks is nothing more than a personal attack on me by you. What, you can't find a current relevant issue and need to dig up ankle biting pettiness?Batvette (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ludvikus revisited (arbitrary break 4)

• Question

What were we talking about again? - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for myself, just ensuring I have sufficiently indulged my petty and immature desires to defend myself from repeated unwarranted personal attacks, while avoiding the hypocrisy of appearing to only address that person, not the issue of article ownership. I'm done if everyone else is.Batvette (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a discussion in Archive 3 of the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory):

--Loremaster (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ludvikus :

• a) is polite (unlike two other editors mostly attacking him here, and quite often treating others with WP:PA's),
• b) is persistent about his views (which is good, as without stubbornness of editors on wikipedia, it would have much less quality articles, which in my opinion arise from intense discussions between editors),
• c) actually discusses his reasonings on talk page (almost?) ALWAYS, unlike other two editors who have a habit of often simply reverting other's edits without providing them with any reasonable justification.

now, i can understand that some people are bothered with Ludvikus' sometimes confusing argumentation. he also confuses me sometimes. but is that a reason for me to tell him he should be blocked, or be silent, or not participate in wikipedia? that is simply ridiculous. it is against principles that wikipedia is fundamentally based on. if you are confused, you are not obliged to respond, or as Loremaster pointed out above, have your mood ruined in interaction with him. you can go of-line for a change and do other things. or imagine this option, an amazing and ingenious new idea that might not have occured to complaining editors: you can spend some time editing other articles, and leave the confusing Ludvikus' comments to some other editor to deal with. what a novel idea! (well, of course, article "owners" won't like this novel idea) 212.200.205.163 (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why I reject your "novel idea" is because, primary due to my one-year-long work, this article has steadily improved from being a vehicle for paranoid conspiracy theories to a Good article according to Wikipedia standards. I will not take a break from this article to see all this hard work destroyed. That being said, let me say this: Having invested a lot of time and energy in editing this article, I have been guided by one overriding principle: All claims about New World Order conspiracy theories and theorists must be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. We don't own this article but we want it to be the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. students, journalists, cultural critics) who is interested in the subject. I have and will cooperate with anyone in an effort to make the article well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough for Featured Article status. --Loremaster (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the going off-line idea occured to many other editors in contact with Ludvikus, and if you look above, that has left some articles with too few editors. But anyway, Loremaster could leave the article to Ludvikus and Batvette for a period of time. Then the community could see if there is any improvement or not. 134.106.41.27 (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside that I'm always suspicious of anonymous comments on a talk page, leaving the New World Order (conspiracy theory) in the hands of a person who confesses to being ignorant of the subject and another person who has a political agenda would be a disaster! --Loremaster (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was notified of this ANI section on my talk page. It seems to me that many of the people commenting here have not followed the links embedded in the introductory sentence of this ANI. "Ludvikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears not to be abiding by what he agreed to at the close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive568#Historical revisionism: User:North Shoreman & User:Philip Baird Shearer v. User:Ludvikus, namely this post." If that thread is read it links to another ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Ludvikus September 2009 and it also contains this comment:

Ludvikus was unblocked on Sept 21 with request stating "... I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor...." Well, this is already, I believe, the third ANI thread in two weeks. Looie496 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But here we are again. Clearly Ludvikus has not "drop ANY confrontation with any other editor". Take for example this statement slightly higher up this section "With Mentoring, there will not be any need for preventing me from editing the article which you currently own.", it is in my opinion confrontational.

I think we need to enforce the promise that Ludvikus made before he was unblocked as he seems unable to help himself. I made some sugestions on 27 September on his talk page about how he could avoid conflict. I made a suggestion on how he could pick topics and areas where he could learn how to be a constructive member of the community and keep to his promise. I have also suggested else where on his talk page that he did not edit any page which he edited between his former block and the most recent one which was suspended before the two years were up. Making these suggestions, and therefore not part of his current formal restriction seems to have failed. I am of a mind to increase the restricted area to force him to abide by his promise to "simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor...." until next May when his block would have been lifted.

In the restriction I placed on Ludvikus. I included the following (so he can not claim that he was not warned):

For example Ludvikus, has been editing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion a lot and been very vocal on the talk page strongly and at the moment seems to be the only person arguing that the article should not lose its featured article status. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is one of his old hunting grounds and was frequently edited by him back in 2008. I think the time has come that because he has not chosen to do so, that he is forced to move onto new areas of Wikipedia, well away from the areas which he has been editing from 6 April 2008 to date. If however this is not a solution that other administrators can agree on, then we need to come up with some other solution, as a block until next May will not allow him to learn how to work on the project cooperatively in such a way that he is not back on this page ever few weeks. -- PBS (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• i don't think you have a valid argument there. you cited one example, which in my opinion is not a good one, as just looking at article edit history does give an impression of "article ownership". i hardly see it confrontational to state an observation. now, if you were following their interaction, you would notice tons of confrontational WP:PAs from the other editor, so those comments should be directed at them. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of owning an article is to accuse that person of un wikipedia behaviour (see Resolving ownership issues) and is confrontational. -- PBS (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: And I'm keeping my promise. I think, PBS, you assumed that if I was cornered by a bully, I would give in. There's a difference between hunting for editors who violate WP rules, which I do not do, because that would be Confronting them. But you are now attemting to corner me for your own Misconduct. And you are not simply an "editor." You are an Administrator at Wikipedia. You and another editor own the article Historical revisionism, an extremely controversial topic. You are simply seeking to protect that ownership. And you do not wish me to be able to create the article Revisionist historians (American). That's your real motive in trying to get me Blocked or Banned from Wikipedia. It's a Content dispute involving articles which you own. it is that simple. And because you are an Administrator, you think you can get away with that. Maybe you can, I don't know. It's up to the community at large, as Jimbo Wales informs me. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that you - User:Philip Baird Shearer = PBS - raised the point, I like to say that I'm fully capable of participating in the editorship of the historical revisionism family of articles, and I wish that the Restriction which you succeeded in imposing be lifted. I assure you that I will be extremely cautious in editing those articles because I know now that you, and one other editor OWN those articles. And I know what can happen to an editor who is not extremely careful. I will be especially careful NOT to create anything which even remotely resembles a Fork of any kind. I understand fully the need to act by WP:Consensus. And if I think an article is wrong, I will NOT violate the Consensus rule, in spite of what the other Administrator is trying to get me to do. I've imposed a 1RR rule upon myself, and I've interpreted Consensus as a Majority (which I understand is a more stringent condition). Therefore, the only possible Reason you can have to have me Blocked or Restricted, is to protect your ownship of your articles. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• PS1: The editor/Administrator I "Confronted" about 1 1/2 years ago is User:El_C. I think I was insensitive then, and not fully aware of what the concerns were. So he retaliated - out of anger and frustration I believe - and imposed a Block on me for two (2) years. From that experience I've learned not to be Confrontational. But here, you, PBS, are confronting me - and your only real interest is in protecting the articles which you own, namely those related to historical revisionism. My promise to be non-Confrontational does not entitle you to believe that I would simply do anything you want just because you are an Adminstrator. So I think you should consider lifting your Restrictions regarding historical revisionism because I know now how to be extremely cautious regarding Wikipedia rules and articles that you particularly value, even if I think you're mistaken with respect to their content. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• PS2: You PBS are also being inaccurate and unfair. You have a duty to inform the community that I've honored your Restrictions 100% regarding historical revisionism. How come you're totally igoring that? You closed the ANI regarding that issue within 24 hours - and I did NOT Confront you on that. So you should give me a WP Barnstar for excellent WP conduct. But instead you are here Confronting me because you wish to protect the Ownership of your article, historical revisionism. Isn't that the truth? And now I'm not being Confrontational - you are. My "promise" not to be Confrontational does not mean giving in to being bullied - as you - PBS - seem to interpret that promise. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludvikus you may think you are keeping to your promises, but others can make their own minds up to whether your word is your bond. So it is quite clear to you the restriction I placed on you remain in place, what I am discussing here is if we should extend them. Your comments above show how far you have yet to travel. For example you write "So you should give me a WP Barnstar for excellent WP conduct." but barnstars are given by some editors to other editors for what they think are outstanding achievements, but demanding a barnstar from another is quite the opposite :-( -- PBS (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I make no "demand" of you. I just have a difference of opinion with you. I think I've learned an awful lot very quickly. I've not violated a Single WP rule. There are many things I could still learn. And there are some wonderful people here who are teaching me. User:Verdatum is one very knowledgeable editor whom I particularly respect. Unfortunately you are not one of these yet. Just because you are an Administrator does not mean - according to Jimbo Wales - that you have any special rights - except the power to Ban or Block me. The reality is that you are only interested in one thing - protecting the Articles which you WP:Own - namely, historical revisionism. The fact is you cannot produce a Single DIFF, not One, which shows that I've violated Any WP policy. At the moment you are the Cause of the current Disruption. As you can see, the Consensus is in my favor. The reason you are here - the Only reason - is that you are afraid that very soon my Restrictions with respect to the articles you Own may also be Lifted. You are afraid of that. So now you're putting in your 2 cents to try to convince the Community to act the way you say. That's the truth. And you will not succeeded into bullying me to submit to you just because you are an obviously influential, clever, and powerful Wikipedia Administrator. You should stick to the topic. I'm here because two editors have ganged up on me to protect the articles which they Own. That has nothing to do with the nine (9) articles, related to historical revisionism, which you own. What is it that I have not learned? (It's extremely difficult for me to keep my cool with you. But as you see, I'm doing it very well). Therefore, I deserve a WP Barnstar. You, of course, are free NOT to give it to me. That is your prerogative. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. You've bought in this issue, not I. The only reason these restrictions are in place is to protect the ownership of the articles you own. I did not Confront you with that. You Confronted me here. What reason do you have for keeping these restrictions? I promise the whole Community that I will be extremely cautious about them. So there's no need to keep these restrictions. As you can see, these restrictions also are used to ruin my good name as an editor. Therefore, since you introduced the issue, why don't you explain to the Community why there is a need to maintain a Restriction which only you, and your side-kick, desire? What could possibly happen if the Restrictions were lifted? In my opinion, the Wikipedia article will improve - because now I'm an expert on revisionist historians (American). You deny that such a distinction exists. That too is your prerogative. So I'm a minority. And it's for me to win support for my view. And you are afraid that I will succeed in winning over a Consensus to my side. Isn't that the truth? Isn't that the ONLY reason you are here now? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludvikus, nobody has questioned your motives. Please extend the same courtesy and assume we are all here for the same reason: to improve Wikipedia. That's what assuming good faith means. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ludvikus, it was your disruptive editing on revisionism-related articles (including those as far afield as Revisionist Zionism) that earned you a two-year block in the first place. I agree with PBS that you should stay as far away from those articles as possible, at least until your block period runs out. — User:Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Jpgordon, as always, I give much weight to what you have to say. You are an experienced Administrator, and even if I do not always agree with you, I know it's productive to listen to you, give weight to what you have to say. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact is, User:Malik Shabazz, you've been identified above, by User:Verdatum, as WP:Hounding me. That happened almost two years ago. Now I'm aware, for the first time, your special interest in Revisionist Zionism. Had you informed me then of your concern, I would have given your views their proper weight. But you must know that telling someone that they are "disruptive" is not informative. I do not have any idea what it is that interests you regarding that article. But I can assure you that I am perfectly capable of giving your position its proper weight - certainly more so when than I did two years ago. Some people learn from their past. I'm one of those who does. And if you tell me something, in a respectful tone of voice, I'll listen. In fact I've even learned to listen to disrespectful voices. So why don't you explain, if you wish, what your fear is regarding that other Revisionism article? Can you explain more clearly why you took it upon yourself to WP:hound another editor? You seem not to like the status of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But you've made no effort whatsoever to improve it - only criticize it as inadequate. That's not helpful to Wikipedia. Not only that, but you know that I was away for two years - yet above you blame me for the decline of it's status. Yet User:Jpgordon expects me to have faith in your good will. Wikipedia does not require one to assume Good faith where there is none. It is you - more than anyone else - who was responsible for my Block for two years. So I can assure you, I can be extremely careful in my editing wherever I will find your foot tracks. That in the interest of Wikipedia, I know that. Contrary to what Jpgordon says, not everyone here is working for the good of Wikipedia. I know, 100%, that I am. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Saying something doesn't make it so. I've never hounded you. As I explained to you two years ago, when an editor is disruptive on one page, it's appropriate to review her or his edit history to fix similar problems on other articles. That isn't considered hounding.

2) The reason for my interest in Revisionist Zionism is irrelevant. My concern was that your editing and repeated page moves were disruptive.

3) I offered constructive comments concerning how to improve the Protocols article. I'm sorry that you interpreted them as a personal dislike of the article.

4) I'm hardly the only editor who believes you are responsible for the poor quality of the Protocols article. Please read the article's Talk page and its FAR page more carefully.

5) Take a good look in the mirror and you'll see the only person who was responsible for your block two years ago. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malik is correct. The idea that anybody but yourself was responsible for your block is, in a word, unsupportable. You've been given opportunity after opportunity to adjust your style (both personal and editorial) to correspond to Wikipedia's policies and expectations. In your time here, you've managed to incur, in order, a 48 hour block, a one week block, a six month block, a 24 hour block, a two month block, and a two year block. Do you somehow think all the administrators that blocked you -- and more to the point, all the administrators who supported these blocks, multiple times, both here on AN/I and in response to your many unblock requests -- have something against you personally or ideologically, are generally irrational, or are here on personal power trips or something? As I said elsewhere, you need to take responsibility for your own actions and the effects of your own behavior. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Jp. You just live in the past. What happened before I cannot change. You apparently have not taken the time to realize that I have changed for the better. I'm very disappointed in you not looking carefully into what this is all about. It's about one article where I have been submitted to Personal Attacks. And when I asked you for help, all you said was - seek Consensus. I did that. I know you remember that. You have not been at ALL helpful to me. I made a big mistake in believing that you might help me. I'm not going to speculate why. I'm just letting you know that you are one of the biggest disappointments - because you were in a poisition to see trouble coming - but did nothing about it. I came to you for help, remember? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was in a position to see trouble coming; but someone unblocked you anyway. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So you were convinced I was hopeless. You never gave me a 2nd chance. It's a shame you didn't tell me that at very beginning. I would have sought help and assistance elsewhere. Instead, in Good faith, I relied on your advice. I see that as a very, very big mistake. If I survive here, you can be sure that's a mistake on my part that will never happen again. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time for the Administrators to Take Charge?

Not that I’m attempting to tell the Administrators that have weighed in here (or are just observing) how to do their jobs, but it seems like it is now time for an Administrative Decision. To me, the starting point in evaluating this situation should be the rationale for the original two-year block articulated at [43]. The phrase that jumps out at me is “editing tenditiously.” This appears to be exactly what is going on at Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory). What I see is the incredible number of 488 edits on the discussion page by Ludvikus in just 23 days from October 6 through October 29.

Compare the substance of these 488 edits in the context of the rationale for the two year block. The blocking editor uses the term “long-term disruption” but links it to this page [44] that discusses a still earlier problem with Ludvikus’ and tendentious editing. I would suggest paying attention to the sections “Example user comments” and “Editors commenting on users driven away”. A month or so after this activity Ludvikus was hit with a six month block.

It seems like the events leading to the six month suspension and two year suspension are being replayed here. With respect to the New World Order article, the overriding question that need to be answered is, “Has Ludvikus’ conduct on the discussion page helped or hindered the editing of the article?" This isn’t something that needs to be further discussed by all the invited guests to the ANI (such as myself) but by the Administrators that can actually do whatever is necessary to CORRECT the current problem and PREVENT more of the same.

In evaluating that issue, it seems also necessary to evaluate the manner in which Ludvikus has responded to the current complaint. Rather than addressing the issues originally raised related to a specific article, Ludvikus invited in folks who had absolutely nothing to do with the current article. Ludvikus pictures hmself as a victim -- he blames two people for the problems with the New World Order Article, the administrator who initiated the two year block for his problems then, and yet two other editors (I’m apparently one of them) for his subject block from Revisionism related articles. This whole discussion, like other discussions that don’t go Ludvikus’ way, has now been turned into a mess that is difficult to keep track of. He has even gone so far as to attempt to use this forum to appeal yet again the subject ban that has nothing do with this article -- a ban that numerous admnistrators have either approved or refused to recommend reversal. While may of Ludvikus' invited guests have mentioned his civility, there is nothing civil about his unfounded accusations that PBS is abusing his position. And he has the audacity after his excessive canvassing to accuse yet another editor of "hounding" him.

It seems to me the choices are clear -- a series of progressively longer blocks was initiated leading to the two year block. If Ludvikus has does nothing significantly wrong, then obviously no corrective action is necessary. If, however, he is doing largely the same thing (tendentious editing) that led to the earlier bans, then it seems like no remedy LESS than an additional two year block makes any sense. Mentorship, further subject bans, or even a block until his original two year ban would have expired make no sense to me -- he got his chance to prove himself six months earlier than he would have and (if the decision is reached that he continues to be a tendentious editor) he blew it.

The question I would ask, if I were an administrator, is “Knowing what would transpire after I lifted the two year block, would I still do it?” Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: And you are in fact the editor who has succeeded in imposing the the Restrictions on me at Historical revisionism. That's why you finally are appearing here. The person responsible for the clutter on the page in question is User:Loremaster. You, on the other hand are interested in only one thing. You are the co-owner of the historical revisionism articles. I'm very glad that you finally came out of the closet. I can assure the Community that I will pay very careful attention to what you have to say. In addition, the place to discuss me, or another editor, is on my Talk page. If you look very carefully at the Talk page that's clutter, you will find that User:Loremaster refused to discuss things at my Talk page or his. The clutter ptoduced there is 100% his fault, not mine - particularly due to his extreme abuse by engaging in personal attacks. So any editor who has a problem with me, is free to discuss things on my Talk page - you are more than welcome to do that. But isn't it true that you're really that side-kick who is the co-owner of historical revisionism? Your only motive here is to protect that co-ownership. I can assure the community that I'm perfectly capable of keeping personal discussion to the proper Talk page. So that's not an issue. Regarding the all the articles mentioned - they have all improved thanks to me. The fact is, User:North Shoreman, you haven't bothered to check. If you look, for example, at the image at the article here in question, you'll discover that the Great Seal of the United States is my contribution as a result of a very difficult uphill battle with User:Loremaster and his side kick there. So if anything, I deserve a WP:Barnstar for improving the article under tremendously difficult conditions, notwithstanding your invalid criticism here. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If it wasn't for me, the Seal you see to your right would not be a part of the article. It's the result of my extremely difficult hard work. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not right for you to confuse the editors with what happened before. This is a case about one article now: New World Order (conspiracy theory). And you now hope that I'll be blocked for my Past (when I didn't know as much). Now I know you're concern over historical revisionism. So Blocking me would ONLY hurt Wikipedia - not me. I'll be disappointed of course. But you have absolutely no reason to go against the consensus expressed above. I know which article I have to be extremely careful about. And you are now distorting reality for one reason only. You are that other editor whose afraid of me contributing to the improvement of the historical revisionism articles. I assure you that I will NOT clutter those Talk pages because I do not think you will behave as Loremaster has with me. Also, I think you would be amendable to a discussion on my Talk page, would you not? So there's no need to Block or Restrict me because of your concerns. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what I wrote on this page last month:

Within a week or two [Ludvikus] will muck up some other area of Wikipedia, and soon thereafter he will be accusing every administrator in sight of having a personal conflict with him. Save us all some time and restore his block.

I'm sorry to say that Ludvikus has proven me right. In fact, he's exceeded my expectations by claiming that anybody who opposes him owns the article in question. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It would have been helpful if the issue of tenacity had been raised earlier. I was accused of that. What is meant by tenacity - that is a surprise for me now. It is unfair to introduce issue so late in this discussion. I think my tenacity was provoked by the constant Personal Attacks - so I was challenged to improve the article in spite of the Descriptiveness I was submitted to. But I find it bizarre that you only measure my tenacity. If you are truly interested in the good of Wikipedia, why don't you please compute the tenacity of the other editors, particularly User:Loremaster. By the way - that may not be simple since he operated under two different accounts. But why don't you simply teach me how tenacity differs from shear dedication to Wikipedia? I sure would like to know that. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Shabazz, you are concerned about Revisionist Zionism. I'll bear that in mind. Regarding "accusing" I'm only discussing here the two co-owner of the historical revisionism articles who are now afraid that I might edit the articles they own. I can assure the Community that I will not even be "tenacious" with regards to that. Since now - for the first time - tenacity is significantly raised. So your predictions, if they were right - must be due to reasons known only to you - and I will not speculate on that. I can only assure the community that I'll have you on my watch-list so that I will not offend any of your concerns. Isn't that what counts? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your logic is twisted. I never said "anybody." You, for example, are not an owner, your just the hounding editor identified as such by Verdatum above. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• this is to PBS and any other editors resting on the case that Ludvikus only invited other editors who he'd worked with in the past and their endorsement isn't relevant to the current conflict-
• PBS claims that Ludvikus promised to avoid conflict with other editors and accusing another editor, in this case Loremaster, of article ownership indicates his initiating a conflict-
• can I ask you to go to the archive talk page of the article in question and look at the heated conflicts immediately preceding the contributions of Ludvikus? Talk:New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)/Archive_3#Primary_Editor_Implying_Article_Ownership_in_Violation_of_Wiki_Guidelines and see what I even had to create a section to demonstrate the difficulty I was having with this editor before Ludvikus had even gotten off blocked status? If you are seriously looking at just this new conflict and the conflict surrounds Ludvikus and that editor's alleged article ownership, then the issue is clearly NOT Ludvikus being a problem at all. I am not the huge contributer around here many others are but have had an account in good standing for several years and get along with just about everyone- and am a fairly accomplished and prolific political debator elsewhere on the internet since 1995, at 47 years old. The editor butting heads with Ludvikus, whose history of very professional contributions to wiki articles is admirable, nonetheless is extremely difficult to work with and is proud of blatantly violating that policy-has probably subjected me to the most rude, condescending and abusive behaviour I can recall in years. So by your stated rationale the complaints against Ludvikus concerning New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory) are wholly groundless as I had the exact same problem immediately preceding his incident. It's on the record.Batvette (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems Happen Taking your edit at face value, you apparently ran into the same problem that Ludvikus did -- an obdurate and aggressive editor. I daresay this has happened to most of the editors commenting here -- it has certainly happened to me. You, like most of us, resolve these things without making 20 edits a day on a discussion page and most of us have not been blocked 6 times for a total of 2 years 8 months 96 hrs. You handled the situation one way and Ludvikus handled it another way. Based on past history, this is the way Ludvikus WILL ALWAYS respond. Ludvikus is familiar with conflict resolution options -- he has requested RFCs in the past. He chose not to do that. here. He attacks me for participating -- I was deliberately avoiding participation until he started personally attacking me as PBS's sidekick. That highlights a major part of Ludvikus' problems -- he just doesn't know when to stop typing.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Batvette is a problem. My accusations against Ludvikus since he nor anyone else has been able to contradict the fact has insisted in the past on revamping the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article despite the fact that he 1) confesses to being ignorant of the subject of New World Order conspiracism, 2) confesses to not having read nor understood the article in its entirety, 3) doesn't know or understand basic Wikipedia guidelines. Although Batvette may legitimately argue that I haven't solidly proven some of my criticisms of Batvette, it is ridiculous to compare the two situations when even even Ludvikus has promised that we will start reading the article it's entirety as well as read more reliable sources to resolve this dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The complaining editors herein are concerned with the article(s) Historical revisionism. They were improperly summoned here. I've complied with the Restriction therein 100%. So they have no business discussing the events to which they themselves were improperly summoned. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludvikus, you engaged in canvassing and you accuse others of "improperly summon[ing]" editors? What a hoot! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninvolved admin here--while the evidence spelled out here seems to call for a community ban, part of me wonders whether this is a complex issue that requires arbitration. As messy as this might be given the nature of conspiracy-theory issues, will we have to end up going there? I'm torn. Blueboy96 22:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The complexity is only due to the arrival, on the 23rd hour, of editors who are concerned with a totally different issue - an issue which I'm complying with 100%. It involves their WP:ownership of articles related to historical revisionism. This issue in this ANI is totally different.
2. I've been subjected to extreme Personal Attacks at New World Order (conspiracy theory) by the tenacious editor there, User:Loremaster. Instead of stopping that abusive conduct, co-editor User:Arthur Rubin brought me to this ANI. The Consensus was, and I think still is, in my favor, regarding the participants who also edited that article. But on the 23rd our three (3) editors from these other issues came here. They are afraid that I might not be blocked, and I might edit their articles centered on historical revisionism. I certainly have learned my need to be extremely cautious. However, as time goes forward the goal-post keeps getting pushed further, increasing the hurdle which I must endure. It appears that because of my past inexperience, I'm expected to accept the abuse involving this ANI. That's really quite simple in my eyes. If you look at the top lede of this ANI you'll the subject. What I hope from the Community is that they will recognize that it is improper to blame the victim for the rape - as was the case in the Dark Ages. I'm asking the Community to just focus on the Article which is at the very top of this page. I was blameless in my conduct there under the circumstances. What had happened before should not be permitted to cloud that issue. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I agree. Well, not with the arbitration bit. This is something we can and should handle ourselves. After reviewing history and reading this stupidly tortuous thread, I do not doubt Ludvikus' current good faith, but his total and utter incompetence in actually editing an encyclopedia is beyond a joke. Not to mention his incompetence in, y'know, relating to people. After good-faith concerns were raised, did he try to respond to them with any sort of compromise? No, just wikilawyered with layer after layer of meaningless, random text. He seems to be labouring under the unfortunate delusion that he cannot possibly be wrong, about anything: his content or his conduct. And this is after upteem million second chances.

• Ultimately such editors are totally unsuited for a collaborative encyclopedia, and would be best off in their own wikia-based fork. This is one of those times when good faith is not sufficient. I propose a community ban, and will implement it myself shortly unless there are any serious objections. Moreschi (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Before you do that, I strongly urge you to read and study this as it pertains to Wikipedia at this moment: [45]. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that really helped your cause. Applause. Moreschi (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm perfectly willing, able, & ready to listen to your advice on how I could be a better editor. In fact, I would like very much like for you to be my Second Mentor. I think you would probably be ideal. Are you willing? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think you are just temperamentally unsuited to collaborative editing. Nothing personal, just business. Me giving you advice at this point would be pointless. Yes, you'd have to listen, because I am effectively holding a gun to your head. But it wouldn't sink in, and in a couple months time we'd just be back here again. I've been in this situation before, and unfortunately I only see one result here that benefits the encyclopedia here (which is, ultimately, the patient, and not you). While I have no wish to be a jerk - nor should I be - at the end of the day the needs of the encyclopedia win out. Moreschi (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tom, you know you're dead on right, thatis a very good analysis and I guess it's right to point out that the conflict I had at that article played out different for each of us, and will admit to some bias toward Ludvikus as I was happy to finally see another editor go in there and stand up civilly to the ridiculous situation that article, IMO, can be to edit. Perhaps you know Ludvikus better than I, but I will say I do have a vague familiarity with wiki law which isn't much different than most legal forums in human history. Ask yourself what it was that initiated this "motion" before the court, this ANI- wasn't it that conflict? We've had testimony from many good editors concerning valid issues in the past and in current issues that may hold water but in the matter that was brought before the court the fundamental issues were not just questionable, they were groundless-Ludvikus was, as I have been, being excluded from editing that article by two individuals who saw his history as a liability to do so, just as they tried to use a false presentation of my beliefs to exclude me. They (he, loremaster) will exploit what liability they can to exclude the editor. Are any of the issues raised by others serious enough to have initiated this motion of ANI on their own? I think Ludvikus was getting a hosejob with the initial motion and if the charges were groundless the testimony against his person is largely irrelevant. Does the ANI address his person or his specific actions? I think if you want to create an ANI to ban Ludvikus that is your prerogative- but wipe the slate clean and argue that on its own merits as the ANI that began this was complete BS by a couple of people setting him up to keep him away from THEIR article. Batvette (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a discussion in Archive 3 of the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory):

--Loremaster (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loremaster, this is THREE times you have posted another editor's groundless claim on this page, it is in fact so and can be seen addressed in the June 2009 section of my talk page. Since you repeatedly made false claims I had a history of vicious personal attacks on you but when forced into a corner to produce one linked to a comment made in jest about your own repeated flameword "crank" I can only surmise you now use the false claims of yes men to avoid getting caught in further false claims of your own. What makes it all absurd is the personal attack allleged by DougWeller concerned my calling your arguments shifty and dishonest, which you just again display are your modus operandi. Please find substance to include in your further replies to me. Batvette (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you really do not wish to be a "jerk," as you say - for the good of the Encyclopedia - you would put Loremaster in his place for repeatedly calling Batvette a "crank." If you want to Block me for that - standing up for Batvette, at least be forthright about it. The fact is, that at this moment, Loremaster has been Archiving the Talk page to cover up his tracks wherein he called, repeatedly, Batvette a "crank." If you do not put a stop to that and choose to Block me instead, well than you are what you say you don't want to be. And I say to you again - you should put up, or shut up. You can be my mentor with that "gun to my head." Those are your words, not mine. That way, you can be the Big Cop, and I'll focus on Content editing. But obviously, you're only capable of doing the very easy thing - the few seconds to impose a community ban on me. That is not good for Wikipedia. And everyone who is reading this knows it. So try what I ask you. Be my Mentor. No one asked you to come here. You did it on your own. So mentor me how to avoid getting into trouble with characters like Loremaster. You are required to assume WP:Good faith with me. You do not have a choice about that. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per that statement, I endorse Moreschi's ban proposal. Clearly, this user doesn't understand how this project works. Blueboy96 01:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone have a look at the latest bad block on BigDunc here. This is getting beyond a joke. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 18:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elonka's reasoning is faulty, as the 1RR/week restriction in WP:RfAr/The Troubles clearly doesn't apply unless the probation notice would apply. She claims there's a 1RR/week community restriction, but I can't find it. (Disclaimer: Elonka and I do not see eye-to-eye on much of anything, but I didn't research this because Elonka was involved. ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka has lifted the block, so no further action needed here. Discussion as to the precise nature of the 1RR probation going forward would probably not be amiss, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is ANI that forum, though? I'm not sure. Agree that more discussion is necessary, if only to clarify what restriction kicks in when. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To compare, I recently blocked two editors on Kosovo for 1RR/week violations. The talkpage there clearly states that there is a 1RR probation in effect, and the box includes a link to the precise definition of 1RR in this case -- "I am hereby placing Kosovo under 1RR sanctions for ALL users editing this article. This means that you are only allowed one revert per week to this article, except in cases of obvious vandalism. In addition, you will be required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page." There is also an editnotice setting this out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there appears to be good faith confusion about the definition of 1RR in the Troubles case. So, this situation would benefit from a community discussion on the matter, to clarify the remedies. As a summary:

• There was an ArbCom case in October 2007, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, in which the remedies required that editors first be placed on probation, and then limited to 1RR, one revert per article per week.
• The remedies of the case were then extended in October 2008, by community discussion[46] to include all articles related to the Troubles (British/Ireland article), with blocks of 1 week for even the first offense, to be extended to 1 month, and then discuss ban options after that. However, unfortunately, "1RR" was not clearly defined in the October 2008 discussion, so there is ambiguity as to whether the "all articles" restriction meant "1 revert per article per week", or "1 revert per article per day".

It is also unclear whether an editor still needs to be placed under formal "probation" before they can be blocked, or whether it is sufficient to announce that the article is under probation (In the case of Irish Bulletin, a clear notice had been placed on the talkpage that the article fell within the scope of October 2008 consensus).

Going forward, what are people's thoughts? For Troubles-related articles, how should 1RR be defined, and how much warning is required to an editor beforehand? --Elonka 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wider problem here is the unreasonably wide interpretation of what constututes a "Troubles related" article. "When in doubt, assume it's related" is simply not a sensible basis to on which to operate. "The Troubles" are generally understood to have begun in 1969 (or 1966 by some reckonings) and to have ended, for the most part, with the Belfast Agreement of 1998. BigDunc's block was for editing an article about a rather obscure publication from the 1920s! To tar all of Irish history and indeed all contemporary Irish and Northern Irish politics with the brush of the Troubles is effectively to place unusual and unacceptable restrictions on editing articles about whole swathes of the national life of the Irish Republic and indeed The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This whole ArbCom ruling on the Troubles needs to be rethought, refined and clarified.Irvine22 (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without re-reading through all the existing discussion, it seems to me that 1RR per day would be reasonable, unless a particular editor is placed under 1RR/week.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a standard template to be placed on Troubles-related articles would help here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a template, which was used at Talk:Irish Bulletin#Notification, though it could probably be expanded. --Elonka 19:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least moved to the top of the page, where it would be more visible. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (to Irvine22) Yes, but when it's the usual Troubles crowd fighting we can safely assume that nationalist WP:BATTLEGROUND lies behind it, even on a somewhat obscure article that's not obviously linked to the Troubles. Moreschi (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed: "Troubles" should be interpreted widely (after all, the grievances of the Troubles didn't materialise out of nowhere in 1969, or vanish overnight in 1998). The aim here is to prevent edit warring on a series of related articles, not to be legalistically precise about what "the Troubles" as a historical episode was. Rd232 ^talk 19:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as you know, that can be so widely applied as to mean that just about any article related to Ireland may be so tagged. And Ireland is so much more than just The Troubles, don't you agree? Irvine22 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles issues may spill over into many Ireland-related articles, including ones seemingly somewhat distant. To repeat myself, "The aim here is to prevent edit warring on a series of related articles, not to be legalistically precise about what "the Troubles" as a historical episode was." Rd232 ^talk 22:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting legalistic precision. Just common sense. Irvine22 (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Could Elonka please remove this. BigDunc 19:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended, yes. It was in the queue to handle, though I was mulling whether to replace it with a formal probation notice or not. But I've definitely marked it for now as the block being lifted. --Elonka 19:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. BigDunc 19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only confusion about 1RR in this matter is with the admin with the trigger happy block finger, I warned her that 1RR creates nothing but drama and a few days later look were we are. 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing to consider is the impact[47] of ad hoc constraints. I'm not an editor involved normally in this area, nor has anyone suggested that I am (specifically I surfed the broad subject after a discussion here, edited maybe 3 articles) - indeed I was just working on an interesting stub that seemed to have easily accessible ref's to expand upon. But one of the unique things I've noticed here is the high degree of interaction between a tight knit group of editors focused solely on this broad area who edit as a group and are quite openly discussing cooperation amongst themselves in numerous locations or possibly seeking out[48] supporting editors. The problem may be as much an abdication by neutral editors due to the stresses involved in contributing in this area as anything else. Artificial limits - without consideration of the associated gaming consequences, should be fully discussed before implementation as broad official policy....-99.135.174.186 (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP above - exactly right. Irvine22 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, the IP, 99.135.174.186 (talk · contribs) has been steadily hopping from one IP to the next in this topic area and other areas of conflict, accumulating a steady history of warnings (and some blocks). So when they say that they are "not an editor involved normally in this area", that's not entirely accurate. For more info, see User talk:99.135.170.179#Multiple IPs. --Elonka 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link[49] may be more informative as to the source of tension indicated above. _-99.135.174.186 (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB: created {{Troubles restriction}} to aid communication. Rd232 ^talk 19:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That helps, but only if it isn't too widely applied to articles that are clearly not Troubles-related as the term "The Troubles" is properly understood. And didn't you recently try to tell me that Birds of Ireland was somehow Troubles-related? You see how silly this can get...Irvine22 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. I told you to exercise common sense and caution, asking if in doubt, and when you claimed inability to do that, I told you how you could be sure of avoiding the issue. Rd232 ^talk 22:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for common sense. Caution, not so much. Irvine22 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Rd232 is happily adding his new template to articles can someone tell me where breaches are to get reported to? And also are we going to have a situation were some admins will block and others won't, as Sandstein refused to block for 1RR previously, while other admins were blocking. BigDunc 20:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breaches should be reported at WP:AE, just as the blocks should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Judging by the arbitrators' comments on the talkpage there, they are aware that this means that the original ArbCom decision and the followup community consensus decision are a bit mushed together, but they seem to be okay on that. --Elonka 20:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’m happy enough now that the BAD BLOCK was lifted, however suggestions that it was based on "confusion" as to what 1RR is, is nonsense. With this little flurry of activity I must of missed the apology that Dunc had coming?--Domer48_'fenian' 21:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• @ Elonka 1RR is not part of the arbcom remedy it was community consensus we had a situation I mentioned before were User:Sandstein refused to block at AE for 1RR breaches this will happen again. BigDunc 22:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was more Sandstein saying that he was hesitant to use the AE subpage as an adjunct to Community Sanctions, but that seems to have been resolved satisfactorily with recent issues. I'd still use AE, myself, but I can understand where you're coming from, Dunc. SirFozzie (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fozz I said it then and I said it on the page I got the bad block (in fact I was the only one who agreed to it) I have no problem with 1RR as long as it is universal and we wont have situations were one admin blocks and another admin comes along and doesn't block. All this does is open up the whole can of worms about bias. And as an admin that was involved you have got that from both sides. BigDunc 23:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunc, here is a link which should help. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone give me a quick summary of what went on here?--Tznkai (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Elonka was under the impression that there was a one revert a week condition on articles related to WP:RfAr/The Troubles and under that supposed restriction blocked user Big Dunc and IP99 both for a week, there was some suggestion from other involved users that there isn't a one revert a week condition and so quite swiftly Admin Elonka unblocked them both and since then there has been continued discussion regarding the situation around the one revert condition. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Off2riorob's summary, nice job.  :) I'd also add that BigDunc and IP99 were both very clear that there was a one-revert-per-week restriction on Irish Bulletin. In fact, I'd even mistakenly said one revert per day[50] when I first started monitoring the article, but errors were pointed out in my post,[51] so I struck out the "once per day" part.[52] BigDunc even repeated the 1RR restriction back to me,[53][54] because he had strong concerns about it. So it's clear that he knew about the restriction ahead of time. --Elonka 01:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: one issue is that the template {{Troubles restriction}}, like the notices it replaced, tells users "If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link" (the link being Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case). What effect is that link likely to have on the average user wandering by, never mind the average newbie? It's bad enough to have scary restrictions imposed, it should at least be presented clearly. Otherwise the restriction is contributing unnecessarily to deterring new people from getting involved. Rd232 ^talk 07:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No question it's a deterrent. But then there are editors working in this area who quite clearly want to deter others from editing articles over which they feel proprietorial, and admins who seem willing to appease them. This sort of thing will drive people away from Wikipedia. (Not me though. I'm here to stay.) Irvine22 (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Rd232: I agree that part of {{Troubles restriction}} seems a bit confusing. How about changing it to, "If you are a new editor in this topic area, please follow these restrictions. If you have any questions, please post a message on this talkpage. If you get no reply, and no one else is editing the article, then you may assume that there is no immediate objection to any good faith edits on your part. If administrator attention is needed to enforce restrictions, please post a request at WP:AE." --Elonka 14:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Elonka: Do you really think the tortured formulation you are proposing above is at all welcoming to new users?Irvine22 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should be as welcoming as possible to new users. However, we should also be fair and let them know what kind of drek they're going to be in for. I'd support new editors being given a different template going something like "Please be forewarned that controversial editing areas may invite extra scrutiny. Please make sure you're making every effort to comply with Wikipedia's policies, including editing restrictions that are in force on articles in this area.". (Please forgive, I'm typing quick, and just came up with that off the top of my head.) SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory registration is inevitable. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie: Hmm, are we talking about the same thing? I'm in agreement that new users should receive as gentle and welcoming a message as possible. But my impression for {{Troubles restriction}} is that it's a template which is to be placed on article talkpages, not user talkpages. So we can't modify it to display one message for new users, and another for established users (though such an option would be very handy!). --Elonka 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad. fundamental disconnect, I have no problem with your message for talk pages. Perhaps we can produce a version of the welcome template to give to new users editing in the troubles area. Eh. Let's see... (I see that Dunc has already brought up a user over on AE as requested.. do you want me to handle it?). SirFozzie (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! It's always good when there are multiple admins monitoring a controversial topic area.  :) --Elonka 21:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) Darn it, I was afraid you were going to say that ;).. needless to say, I have history in trying to resolve this dispute. History. that's a good word for it :P :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well your both looking at it and Fozz has been on the talk page so is anyone going to do anything? BigDunc 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smokers. Some kinda stronger protection is needed at BigDunc's userpage. Things are getting ridicules. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking if Elonka or other AE admins familiar with this wanted to make a go at it, I will be giving it a shot shortly. and I'll see what's going on at Dunc's userpage *sighs heavily* SirFozzie (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's warnings for breaching 1RR great stuff, I don't breach anything and get a week block, another bad one to my list, but as I said it depends on which admin comes along whether you are blocked or not which is BS, either all get blocked for 1RR or none get blocked. BigDunc 22:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the record I didn't want the editor blocked but it just proves the point I have been making. BigDunc 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunc, You know my style. I give one warning before taking action in all but very egregious cases. I very specifically did not close it, I added sections for further discussion, and if any administrator wants to overrule me, place Jdorney on probation or issue a block, I have no problem with that. Do you want me to state as such on the AE request? SirFozzie (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No as I said I honestly don't want to see any editor blocked except for the blindingly obvious trolls and disruptive editors, but I wonder if it had have been some other editor would they have been blocked, maybe not by you but possibly another admin. You are well aware of the situation Fozz not all admins are and this is where the trouble begins with blocks for some and not for others. BigDunc 22:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, you ask different people they have different opinions. And as volunteers, no one person could ride herd on a topic area as far ranging as this because of the amount of time it takes. (and in my opinion, you couldn't pay me enough to make it a full-time job :D) SirFozzie (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would give me a mop and I would clean it up ;) BigDunc 22:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just illustrates how some editors have block logs and others don't. One editor get a warning another get a block which all depends on which admin you get. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with IP editors in this area

I'm setting this section apart slightly to separate this from the discussion of the block of BigDunc to discuss a corollary situation to this one. There are numerous long term blocked/banned users in this area, who continue to disrupt Wikipedia even after they've been formally disinvited. (see: This link for only one such editor's path of disruption). What I think we're seeing is some of these disruptive users moving to IP addresses in an attempt to continue to effect the area without quickly being restricted out of the area.

I know, in general, that we Assume Good Faith with unregistered editors, but with the amount of disruption in this area (including the above IP-hopper), perhaps it would be advisable to put forward a request that any IP who comes in and shows signs of being a single purpose account, be immediately made aware of the probationary terms and have them applied ruthlessly (including blocks, etcetera).

I would also request that checkusers be made aware of current IP addresses to see if this is indeed block evasion, and to determine eventually if range blocks are necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and this can certainly be done, but my impression was that Checkusers weren't supposed to be contacted unless we had a rough idea of who we thought the IP might actually be, per "CheckUser is not for fishing expeditions". Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding Checkuser policy, I don't use it very often. But is there some sort of exemption for ArbCom enforcement areas, or what is the best way to request a Checkuser in these situations? What code letter would we use? --Elonka 22:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's happened before in ArbCom related areas where greater scrutiny is necessary, for example, Mantanmoreland, etcetera. Perhaps a formalclarification with ArbCom asking that in areas where there is significant amounts of IP disruption is happening, that checkusers be given greater latitude in rooting out problematic editors. Basically, there's just way too many articles that could be considered "Troubles" (ie, Republicanism/Nationalism, name of the island vs the nation, etcetera) related to consider lowering the threshold for semi-protection. I would also file a SPI (naming the Troubles as the representative case), for the IP, to determine if a range block can be done (ie, what is the collateral damage)). SirFozzie (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I have filed a case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles. --Elonka 22:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geez people

To quote Rodney King, can we all just get along? Or in wikispeak, why do we have these years long edit wars by the same users who simply care more about their own POV instead of building a good or great NPOV wiki article? I know the answer. The answer is that they see their POV being "perverted and distorted" and that hundreds if not thousands of years of real life ethnic wars render them unable to edit otherwise. Well, it's time to get over and stop this nonsense. And what's all this arguing about 1RR being a week or not? We all know that 3RR/1RR/0RR etc means PER DAY unless otherwise specified. As to "Whether an editor needs to be placed under formal *logged* ArbCom probation, before an admin can do anything", NO THEY DON'T because The Troubles editors have all been on notice FOR A LONG TIME. If I come upon this problem again, I'll be out of patience. Get on with building articles instead of all this incessant bickering. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• applause* SirFozzie (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Like one of my heroes said, "Nationalism is racism". We're all created equal here; let's try not to always see any disagreement in nationalistic terms. --John (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to community sanction

To help clarify when 1RR means "per day" or "per week", it's probably best to spell this out. How does this sound?

• 1RR may mean 1 revert per article per day, or 1 revert per article per week, depending on context, as follows:
  • A limit of one revert per article per week is a restriction which can be placed per the original wording of The Troubles case from 2007. This is a per-editor restriction. The affected editor must be formally warned by an uninvolved administrator on their talkpage, with a link to the case, and an indication of how long that the editor is on on probation for, up to a maximum of six months. The notification and terms of the probation must be logged to the Case page. After an editor has been formally placed on probation, they are restricted to 1 revert per article per week, for the duration of the probation. If the editor is blocked while on probation, this automatically resets the length of time of their probation to the original maximum.
  • Per community consensus from 2008,[55] there is also a 1RR per day restriction, on all Troubles articles. This means that any editor who reverts on a Troubles-related article more than once in a 24-hour period may be blocked immediately, for up to one week, even on the first offense. However, administrators are still advised to use good judgment, to assume good faith, and to avoid biting genuinely new users. So, at the administrator's discretion, they may choose to issue a warning rather than a block.

Thoughts? --Elonka 23:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good. Nobody should be blind-reverting anything but cock and willy-type vandalism on any article related to Ireland, as there has been so much friction. I remain undecided if we merely need to clarify and enforce the existing sanctions more rigidly, or if new sanctions are needed. Let's try Elonka's suggestion anyway. --John (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the sanctions are enforced uniformly on all editors there will be no problems but already we have had 1 editor myself wrongly blocked for a week and a day later and editor who certainly breached 1RR get a warning. So either all get blocked or none get blocked, or we are going to have a lot more threads here from disgruntled editors complaining that they were blocked and X wasn't. BigDunc 15:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer: That was because the terms of the editor probation (1RR/Week, up to one week block) and the article probation (1RR/Day, normal size blocks) were mixed up. I will try to keep an eye on AE (as well as talk with a couple of the other AE regulars on this), so we can keep things moving smoothly. And I have no problem with what Elonka says up above. SirFozzie (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie, I think you meant "(1RR/week, normal size blocks) and the article probation (1RR/day, up to one week block)", yes? Just want to make sure we're clear, so we don't run into enforcement problems in the future! --Elonka 17:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Moonbatssuck (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This user is on some kind of mission regarding 350.org, although I'm not quite sure what s/he is trying to prove. I'm not familiar with that article, but the user is repeatedly adding sarcastic comments on Ratel's talk page, and citing Ratel when removing content from Taxpayer March on Washington. I think Moonbatssuck needs a heart-to-heart. APK because, he says, it's true 16:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning left on user's talk page here. Tan | 39 16:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How am I being disingenuous? I only want Wikipedia to have one standard for these issues. I was giving Ratel credit for convincing me about this issue. When did Ratel says that he/she disagreed about the Taxpayer March on Washington edits? --Moonbatssuck (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec 2) Actually, I can see his reasoning; it's certainly less convoluted than that of the 350 anons. If inapporpriate activity during an event, not sanctioned by the organizers, is allowed in Taxpayer March on Washington, it should be allowed in 350.org. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about a content dispute. I don't have an opinion in regards to images being added to 350.org; I haven't read the article. This conversation is about a new account misquoting a fellow editor and leaving sarcastic comments on a user's talk page (Ratel has reverted three times. I assume Moonbatssuck is not welcome on Ratel's talk page, but that's just a wild guess.) If you see his reasoning for adding images to 350.org, Talk:350.org would be the right venue. Moonbatssuck is trying to make a point by removing content from an unrelated article. APK because, he says, it's true 18:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the reasons and evidence I left on User talk:Moonbatssuck, this account is blocked indefinitely for (a) disruption, (b) importing a real world conflict into Wikipedia WP:BATTLE, and (c) derisive username combined with a campaign to attack and disparage other users due to their political views. Jehochman ^Talk 18:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it wasn't an image added to 350.org, it was a statement about police activity at one of the 350-organized events. But perhaps this issue is closed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the user comes back and explains things, I may be willing to unblock them. At this point, I don't think a single purpose disruption account gets lots of extra chances, at least not until they choose to improve. Once the autoblock expires, the user can quietly get a new, appropriate username (Not {Group of Users}Suck) and edit properly, and we will all be happy. Jehochman ^Talk 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idetestlunarbats (talk · contribs) was blocked. I assume MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs) is the only, remaining reincarnation. APK because, he says, it's true 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MoonHoaxBat should also get a username block. Conflict-promoting usernames are not helpful, especially combined with the user's other problems. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the account engages in bad behavior, that may be reason to block. I am guardedly hopeful this will not become necessary. The account name is no more offensive than User:WatergateScandal or User:NuclearWarfare. Like the Great Moon Hoax, these are historical, military or political concepts. On the other hand User:RepublicansSuckEggs would be unacceptable. Jehochman ^Talk 14:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a huge deal, I'll change the username. I don't think the current name says anything offensive to anyone (Moonbat) wouldn't be offensive, either. I took out any derisive verbs. Not worth being banned over -- but I don't know if there's a way to change username.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The username MoonHoaxBat alludes to the concept of global warming as a hoax perpetrated by moonbats, a political epithet according to that article. It's a red flag when associated with a user previously involved in editing disputes related to 350.org. It's not up to me whether any username is permitted, but in my opinion the admins should be stricter about dubious usernames than they often are, and not allow that one. Names like ProudRepublican or ElectMoreDemocrats or LegalizePot should not be allowed either, even though they don't actually denigrate anyone. We are all supposed to edit from the neutral point of view, and usernames should reflect that. Username changes are available through WP:RENAME. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this at the Jimbo Wales talk page, but A: He may not be around. B: It may not be the appropriate Venue.

I have been ordered to create an account:

As judging by the discussion at WT:SOCK, the unanimous consensus is that you should create an account and only edit while logged in. This is your last chance to comply voluntarily. If you choose not to comply, technical means will be instituted to prevent you from editing anonymously. Please do not make that necessary. Just login, create an account, and then only edit while logged in. Thanks, --Elonka 20:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this appropriate? I looked at posting at ArbCom on this issue but it is locked. I seem to be in the crosshairs[56] at the moment as User:Elonka and I are currently in disagreement[57] over an interpretation of a WP:RSN discussion[58] which itself was started, by me, but at the request of User:Elonka. I'm also not comfortable with Elonka baiting with leading questions editors engaged in a content dispute with me. [59] which interestingly may have produced this response[60] to my edit here:[61]. Further my participation on the page at the heart of this issue began recently when it was at this stage:[62] as a stub without references. This was my work:[63]. I don't believe that my edits are disruptive, I believe my contributions to be civil, well referenced and supported with clear, concise reasoning.

As an IP I have received some very quick blocks, the most recent was for a week because I made a revert after 6 days. (I reverted an Editor on patrol making multiple edits a minute[64] - and who never returned to the article, or any other page) Apparently Elonka thought I shouldn't make two within 7 days. This was immediately reversed[65] under pressure from the community, but is being used to label me as a troublemaker. As is this edit discussed here[66] for which I was also blocked and which was quickly lifted. No attempts to evade have ever been made, nor have I ever shown anything but the utmost regard for community rules and respect for sanction. That I've been blocked is without question, but I have done my time so to speak and moved away from the source of the tension. That blocks come quickly and easily to IP's puts me at a disadvantage on paper, the black marks are there. A previous discussion on the Wales page regarding IP editing can be found in this edit history[67] (not sure how to link to the archive of the section). I realize it's a narrow question, my thoughts regarding IP can be found in the section noted and also here[68]. I also realize that the debate over IP's is quite significant, many make no attempt to hide their contempt for non-reg users - and discrimination is simply a reality. But as anyone can see by my contributions they are the serious and well supported work of a dedicated Wikiauthor. And although I make a reasonable attempt at discussion I have always left articles if too contentious. None of my work shows any signs of being poor research, bias, SPA or deception through the artificial illusion of multiple personality's (Sock). I had the temerity to believe myself equal to my fellow editors and attempt to participate on administrative forums such as RSN and the like. It would appear that this has caused a great deal of strife as my mere presence as an IP is quickly referred to as all manner of bad things. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.174.186 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"None of your work" shows such signs? Seems that the way that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles is going, that statement seems a bit doubtful. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99.1x has been using dozens of accounts, has accumulated countless warnings, and been blocked several times. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles. 99.1x, sorry, but we're onto you now. The disruption must stop. The only debate now is whether to completely block or ban you from Wikipedia, or give you a chance to start over fresh on a logged-in account. --Elonka 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)X2: From reading the entire section, WT:SOCK#Dealing with a disruptive user on changing IPs, things are apparently not as innocent as you'd have us believe. There are personal attack blocks, edit warring blocks, etc., etc. Since we can't tell when the IP is you and when it is someone else, we have to assume it is you. Low-key editors doing low-key activities in low-key areas over a range of IPs won't even be seen, let alone cause consternation. You apparently are not doing low-key activites, nor are you doing them in low-key areas. You need to register an account. Otherwise, you appear to be changing identities to obscure your record here. That is the part of WP:SOCK that you are violating. Wknight94 ^talk 17:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a discussion over Polanski[69]. I was accused specifically , as you can see by the blocking admin, of adding "fugitive" , and "convicted" and changing an S to lowercase s. As I said, it's pretty easy to get blocked. But I have respected the sanction and removed myself from the source of controversy. The discussion linked to is ample evidence of Ip editing issues, and my moving away is a positive that is being re factored into a negative. One can only imagine the accusation if I had not moved away but become entrenched in the article. -99.135.174.186 (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even now, you're sugarcoating. The nature of that discussion began as you said, but then moved on to contentious changes at other articles - inserting text saying that Anjelica Huston was present when Polanski raped a girl, almost as though she were involved somehow. I'll repeat what I said: low-key dynamic IPs in low-key areas are fine - neither apply. You're editing subjects apparently include pedophilia and The Troubles - what's next, war in Iraq, 9/11 conspiracies, and Holocaust denial? It's as though you are looking down the list of closed WP:RFAR cases and editing only those areas! If you're going to do that, people need to see who they are fighting, so you need a stable user name. Wknight94 ^talk 17:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edit at Anjelica Huston is still the stable version. I alone added each and every word of this and the supporting ref's:

...and included an incident in which she became a witness for the prosecution at Roman Polanski's 1977 trial regarding the rape of a 13 year old girl in Nicholson's home.^[3] Her testimony, in which she arrived unexpectedly at the residence she had just recently shared with Nicholson, was used to place Polanski definitively in the bedroom with the victim.^[4]

And although I was criticized mercilessly for "disrupting" Huston, that - and my Talk page comments, are the entirety of my edits there. Feel free to revert them if you feel they are still disruptive and inappropriate. I honestly believe them to be GF additions to the Encyclopedia. -99.135.174.186 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your original content was worthy of criticism. Your cleaned-up version was after being reverted and discussion - and even an RFC - on the talk page. Regardless, you're missing my original point - you're in contentious areas so you need an account. Wknight94 ^talk 18:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the incident, this was my first edit there[70]. I improved, wikified and ref'd the mention. My editing there lasted about 60 hours, a handful of edits and one sentence.99.135.174.186 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see I'm also being accused of disruptive at Black and Tans. Here is the section as I found it:[71]. Here are my changes:[72]. Still the version. Added to this piece of supposedly disruptive editing in which I arrived at a dormant [73] stub without references and brought to this stage:[74]. Which again is still there and has been added to by others now.99.135.174.186 (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get an account, get an account, get an account. Wknight94 ^talk 18:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, you're wasting your time, trying to persaude the editor to 'create an account' & 'sign in'. If he/she wants to be blocked or banned, that's his/her choice. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no precident to block an ip simply because the person using it will not log in. If there is vandalism, then block, but no one should "rewrite" policy to require a person using wikipedia to log-in or be banned.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we as administrators lack the authority to compel someone to edit while logged in. Indeed, as was pointed out elsewhere, Special:CompelUser seems to be broken. We can treat this IP user (and the IPs connected to him/her) as one user, per policy, and block them from editing through technical means. If they choose to then acquire an account and begin editing while logged in, that is their decision. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not requiring, just strongly suggesting. S/he is going to be viewed with far less suspicion if s/he were at a constant identity. The more s/he protests with pointers to contentious areas, the clearer it is that s/he needs a constant identity. It would work out better for everyone. Wknight94 ^talk 19:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the wording of your "suggestion", it sure did sound like you were giving the person a choice of creating an account or being banned from editing. Perhaps a nice WP:Trout would be in order. We don't like it when the police tell us not to do something thats not against the law, nor do some of us like it when admins decide to rewrite policy to ban people.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "a protest with pointers to"... - and I didn't mean to leave the impression that they were being introduced without cause. I'm rebutting the charges that Elonka has directed at me and that are referred to above.99.135.174.186 (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:(As a nod to the genuine sensitivities of the community at large, should I regain my privilege to edit I shall refrain from any discussions here or at other administrative forums for 3 months. If this requires some sort of formal direction and attachment to a neutral admin for probation oversight and ip id - that's fine.) 99.135.174.186 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's explained it to me yet, as to why it's so difficult to 'create an account' and 'sign in'. What's the point of refusing to do so? is it out of spite? GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

allowing people to edit without requiring them to register an account is a founding principle. So, really, you need to re-word the question to "Why is it a problem that someone decides to edit without an account?" - it isn't; problem editors still get blocked, pages still get locked, etc. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the IPs 99 prefer to go through all this hassle? It's so easy to 'create an account' & 'sign in'. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My earlier concerns were indirectly linked here [[75]], you'll see that I felt that IP editing had become quite difficult around two years ago, things had just changed. In a related discussion more recently[76] I said. "It may not honestly be possible much/any longer to contribute effectively without an account. Neither right nor wrong - just reality.". I accept that it's now time to part company with the project, "anyone can edit". Good luck on achieving your goals, whatever they may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.174.186 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The editor-in-question, was given the option of creating an account & signing in, nobody prevented the person from being able to. Regrettably, the person chose not to. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@NotAnIP83: To answer your question, the problem isn't that someone is editing anonymously. The problem is when someone is IP-hopping to continually reset their warning and block history. This is a violation of WP:SOCK, which states that alternate accounts "must not be used to avoid scrutiny". If an anon is making non-controversial edits in non-controversial areas, there is no problem with editing anonymously. But as soon as they're editing in such a manner that they're accumulating warnings and blocks, while using a dynamic IP to then mask the fact that they have those past warnings and blocks, that's where they're violating policy. --Elonka 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask a question. There's some beans around the effects of IP hopping editors, whether they're logged in or not. Someone deliberately hopping IPs to avoid block-logs will continue to do so, they'll just use different accounts when the do. You mention "non-controversial edits in non-controversial areas" - what about "non controversial edits to controversial areas"? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeeed, the anon would've helped him/herself, had it stopped hopping from IP to IP. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's remind ourselves of WP:IAR: we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to protect the rights of people to edit using IPs rather than with a free, equally or more anonymous, alias. This crops up often enough that I'm inclined to say it should be written down somewhere (if it isn't already). There are good reasons to give users the right to edit via IPs, but editing from a dynamic IP can cause particular problems, and a user consistently refusing to solve those problems by getting an account is being disruptive and should be treated as such. Rd232 ^talk 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is telling you not to block IP editors when they're being disruptive. Editing from a dynamic IP without an account is not disruptive. I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From long experience editing from IP addresses, those of us who edit without using accounts get a little more scrutiny on each edit, which is appropriate and is generally good enough to handle most issues. And as Rd232 says, users exposing their IP addresses are less anonymous than users with made-up account names. It is also harder (though not impossible) to manufacture IP addresses in large quantities than usernames. In general Elonka is right to have decreased AGF towards the activity of IP addresses (or named accounts) in battleground topic areas, and as she is an experienced admin her judgement towards that particular IP should be taken seriously.

Regarding GoodDay's query about not signing in, all I can suggest is trying editing from IP's for a while. If your edits are mostly of good quality, nobody will bother you much about not using an account, and you'll probably find that there are things to like and dislike about it. For some of us, the "like" outweighs the "dislike". If on the other hand your edits are persistently of poor quality, you should find something else to do instead, whether or not you use an account. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, many people can tell you that editing from an IP will get you accusations of socking, trolling, bad faith, etc, even if you're making good edits. Suggesting an IP is bad faith *just because* they're making edits to battleground topics without being logged in is not a good thing. Obviously, as soon as any of their edits are bad faith (even borderline BF) all bets are off.

It sounds like you're doing it out of spite or to make a point, to be honest. I have never seen one good reason given for why unregistered editing could be considered a positive thing. If you think it gives you more anonymity than a registered account, it doesn't. Tarc (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter whether you think it's a good thing or not - it's a founding principle. Supposedly that means it's not up for discussion, but meh. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea behind allowing unregistered editing is that it allows users to make their first edits to Wikipedia with minimal effort; a person doesn't have to do anything besides click "edit this page" to fix an error, and that is a Good Thing for most people, since such drive-by edits are how most editors start off. The idea is that, for your first few edits you edit anonymously, and once you get "hooked" you create an account, and then spend the rest of your life commenting at ArbCom cases and voting at RFA... erm, I mean improving the encyclopedia. Anyhoo, the idea is that most people won't jump through the hoop of creating an account just to fix a spelling error; however the ability to fix that spelling error is the bait that gets most people to create an account in the first place. The downside is that people can continue to edit forever anonymously, either to game the system and avoid scrutiny or to Make a point about something or other. The deal in this case is we should probably take the good with the bad; there would be a drop off in good registered accounts if we disallowed anonymous editing, not an increase, since its the ability to edit anonymously that gets a person interested in the first place. --Jayron32 05:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I said "There are good reasons to give users the right to edit via IPs, but [long-term] editing from a dynamic IP can cause particular problems, and a user consistently refusing to solve those problems by getting an account is being disruptive and should be treated as such." Thanks for spelling out the good reasons, but that's not really relevant to my point. To clarify, my point is that we should have a policy that explicitly says something like "when a particular user's [long-term] use of a dynamic IP causes problems in communication or behaviour monitoring, that user may be required to get an account and edit logged-in." Rd232 ^talk 09:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Totally agree with Jayron. --John (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that Jayron and Tarc are both wrong. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could explain your thinking, instead of making cryptic remarks. Rd232 ^talk 09:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be cryptic. m:exopedianism discusses some of the motivation, though hanging out at ANI like I'm doing right now wouldn't fall under that category, unfortunately. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you'd mentioned that, I wouldn't have complained about making cryptic remarks. However I don't buy exopedianism as a good reason not to get an account if you're making long-term contributions from a dynamic IP. It just makes communication and monitoring easier, which aid the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. You don't have to create a userpage or do anything else you consider non-relevant. Rd232 ^talk 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason monitoring is important is if someone is making bad faith edits. It is trivial (easier) for a person to sock with logged in accounts than with IP hopping. I'm gently worried that the desire to force people to log in is yet another example of the pettifogging overarching bureaucracy that engulfs WP. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I've heard anyone give for editting Wikipedia without an accounts was from Ward Cunningham, who once told me it is "because I can". However, he makes few edits, to the best of my knowledge none are controversial, & he has since created an account for himself here. The point here is, however, that we have an instance where you need to create an account so that other editors can have (to use the phrase as a metaphor here) a face-to-face talk with you -- which is essential in controversial subjects. Your refusal to create an account gives one the impression that you have little interest in discussing your edits -- beyond an exchange of anonymous notes. -- llywrch (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communication on troublesome articles can (should?) take place on that articles' talk page. It's then easier for editors to hold a conversation with someone who's IP is changing. An editor that doesn't discuss anything anywhere is disruptive, and thus blockable. An editor who doesn't return to the pages they've edited isn't disrupting those pages (their changes either stick, or they get reverted, but if there's no revert war what's the problem?). NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Wikipedia is a community that works because of collaboration and transparency. When a user sets themselves outside the community and lays impediments in the way of collaboration, as well as refuses to edit transparently, they are being disruptive and don't deserve to be here. Editing is not a right, so get an account or find some other hobby. If you don't do it now, I move that you be blocked, and that all articles where you edit have semi-protection as their default status. In fact, all controversial articles at Wikipedia would benefit from such permanent/default semi-protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key to editing controversial topics is exactly the same for named and IP editors: write from the neutral point of view, and source every disputable assertion carefully. If everyone did that, there would be no purpose to having user accounts. And feel free to identify any edits of mine that you think are improper, and to request default semi-protection for articles like Fundamental theorem of algebra, Decision problem, Prime number theorem, and San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge, all of which I've edited in the past day or so. I think such a request would be more POINTy than anything I've ever done. I therefore don't feel like discussing this any further. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(End indent): Actually I'm an admin who performs roughly 90% of his mainspace edits from an anonymous IP, and I have done so quietly for the last seven years. I obviously don't think there should be any attempt to deny IP's access to editor rights.

My reasons for editing anonymously are because I personally believe that "edit count scoring" is wrong and harmful and that edits should be judged by the content and not by the author. But rather than make any noisy protest over it, I choose to just edit away quietly and prove my point with actions rather than noise. (And apart from an impressive collection of "Welcome notices" and some trivial reversions by a handful of slightly over-zealous hugglers, I've never had a problem in all my years of anon postings.)

The issue here is someone (allegedly) attempting to use anonymity for bad faith purposes. That is a VERY different state of affairs. Manning (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If Elonka is correct she should (gather and present evidence and then) just block. No one cares if someone is blocked for poor behaviour. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also editing as an IP and getting demands that I register. I'm not doing because I was once burned by violent, extreme nationalists as I think can be seen operating here. As long as the community seems unable to control such people I'll not go back that way and I've since discovered the problem is severe in other nationalist topics. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then edit in a truly anonymous manner, by registering. Your IP is telling where you live! -- Brangifer (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. A reverse lookup on your IP number (a free service you can find through a Google search) shows you are posting from London, UK. While there are a lot of people in that city, someone with sufficient time on her/his hands could narrow this area even further, perhaps as closely as the street you live in. -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86]

Maybe is just me being too inclusionist, but all those sources deleted in 5 months from an I.P. seem just wrong to me (Disclosure: The last two edits deleted some sources I added).

OTOH the user also did many good edits.

Comments, please. Randroide (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the IP. Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed text due to OR, not being notable and undue weight. If I have removed something due to lack of citations, than surely citations are required to show that it is not OR - I have not removed blatantly obvious statements due to lack of citations, but if the validity of something is disputed then citations should be provided. This is the way I edit, I remove things that do not belong here, the same as others hunt vandals, correct grammar, fix broken links - this is just what I do, and I see no problems with it. PS one of the above links is me removing comments from my user talk page, surely that is not seen as a problem, is it? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be a problem needing admin attention here. If you disagree with a bold edit, revert and discuss. The it is an IP makes no difference, as long as it is not vandalism, which it clearly isn't here. Eg - the first link shows a deletion of a section - but the IP left a talk page msg 2 weeks earlier and a good edit summary, so deletion was not against any consensus.YobMod 11:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing well sourced data (First diff: Business week, the BBC and the Independent, all removed in one edit, for G*d´s sake) doesn´t seem like a good idea to me. People are not always online, and editors trust that sourced data will survive here. It did not. IMHO editors get discouraged and pissed off by this kind of edits.Randroide (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you just add your opinion to the talk page? Others did, and the info got improved and is still in the article - BRD worked. If you think the user is overzealous in removals, why not discuss this with him/her; admins don't get any magic discussion powers with the mop. Or you think the IP should be punitively blocked for these edits, days after the fact? I certainly wouldn't have made such large edits to established articles, but the talk pages and edit summaries make it clear that this is not vandalism.YobMod 23:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In June, I've voiced concerns at User_talk:Nihonjoe/Archive_41#Interaction that seemingly retired User:Sennen goroshi continued first as User:61.23.81.111, then as User:119.173.81.176 who edit-warred on my talk page [87][88][89][90][91] and some other pages. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead what did the admin concerned say to you when you voiced your concern? Something along the lines of they are pretty much unrelated as they are different articles/redirects. - so, if you wanna file a sockpuppet report, then do it. Your contribution here is not constructive. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – blocked for 24h Xavexgoem (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC); then unblocked, keeping log at ArbCom if problem persists Xavexgoem (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of topic ban here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Speed_of_light&diff=322563308&oldid=322559639 for a ban imposed only eight days ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Remedies CrispMuncher (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what WP:AE is for. -- Atama頭 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict): This belongs at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, not here. —Finell (Talk) 22:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

belonged ;-) I've already handled it, logged it and everything. But for the future: AE. Xavexgoem (talk)

A nonsensical block. Brews should, of course, have notified another editor about the problem instead of posting it directly on the talk page. But that's a mere procedural violation. Count Iblis (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of remedy 4.2 is that he cannot even participate in discussions about physics-related pages. Your suggestion would have resulted in the same block. For better or for worse, he's completely prevented from directly or indirectly contributing to or commenting on anything physics-related until late October 2010.--Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty clear cut case to me, he violated the remedy he gets blocked.--SKATER ^Speak. 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor could have gone to a trusted friend to ask about it, even against his remedy. It was just a 404, after all... but the editor knows what not to do. He did it anyway. This is boundary-pushing, plain and simple, and that is very common for newly-remedied editors. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, straight-forward vio of the remedy - good block. Though yes, complaint should've been filed at AE to keep all arb matters centralised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur.  Sandstein  20:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A 404 from clicking a wikilink indicates a problem with the wiki software. It is good when such problems are reported, but that should be at VP/T or bugzilla.wikimedia.org rather than on an article talkpage. Apparent boundary pushing should be regarded with diminished AGF and generally result in sanctions, but in this case I'd tend to grant the unblock now that Brews has said he understands what to do instead. Also, saying that a link gets a 404 is sort of a level removed from discussing the contents of an article or related editing, which is what Brews's ban was intended to prevent. (add): Xavexgoem's response on Brews's talkpage is reasonable. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← I've unblocked. The 24h escalation holds at ArbCom's log, so escalation will continue for repeated vios. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got a similar 404 today, clicking on my own talk page, yet. Never got that before, so I'm thinking something was out of whack on wikipedia at some point today. "bugzilla.wikimedia.org"? I wonder how the average editor would know to go there. What he should have done, or at least what I would have done if the problem persisted, is to bring it here to begin with, and let the experts provide guidance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your case it would be baseball_bugzilla, of course. (j/k) 69.228.171.150 (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I stepped right inta dat one, Doc! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

118.94.100.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sole purpose appears to be spamming this product: File:Rear kamagra100mg.JPG -by posting his e-mail address on its talk page: File talk:Rear kamagra100mg.JPG, and then starting posting gibberish on the ref desk talk page. Any thoughts on this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is odd maybe it's some weird spambot?--SKATER ^Speak. 04:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alerted user of this thread--SKATER ^Speak. 04:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted his edits (some of which have a personal e-mail address) and also warned him to stop it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The email address is in an edit summary of that talk page--an admin should delete the talk page, since there is no useful content there. The image itself is also not used anywhere in the encyclopedia, so it should be IfD'd or just plain deleted. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just blatant spamming (see the entry on Sildenafil (aka. Viagra) if you haven't found out yet...) Requested speedy of that talk page. --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 08:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image was posted on July 9, 2007, by a different editor Glowplug1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so before zapping it, any connection there should maybe be explored. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that editor disappeared after posting that photo, and 2 years later (this past summer) he turned up with 4 edits. Hard telling what's going on there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glowplug1 seems to be a legitimate occasional editor who contributed that photo for use in the sildenafil article,[92] where it ended up not getting used. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the image itself. It obviously can be used for spamming and the topic may be subject to it, but there's nothing wrong about having an image of the product IMO.--PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 21:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have an article on that product.... Kamagra just redirects to Sildenafil, which is known in the whole world as "Viagra".... Oh, well, whatever. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be a fair use issue what that photo? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer released all rights to the photo, so that shouldn't be a problem. If you're talking about the drug manufacturer's copyright of the words on the package, IANAL but we'd have to ditch an awful lot of product photos if that were an issue (hmm, might not be a bad idea). Kamagra is an Indian brand of sildenafil which is sold a lot by internet spammers because it's less expensive than (Pfizer trademark) Viagra. I think it's not legal to import to the US because of some difference between the US and Indian patent systems, though spammers aren't bothered by such things. Anyway, using the photo is an editorial decision, and it looks like the sildenafil editors decided (correctly in my opinion) not to use it. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm talking about the brand logo. I've seen before, where photos of branded objects have to have a fair use rationale. "Public domain" was not a valid rationale for a photo of a branded object. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

There's a big wave of new pages coming in, a lot of them vandalism, and they're not getting patrolled fast enough. Would appreciate some help from admins/RC patrollers. Thanks- A little insignificant ^{Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH!} 12:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. I've been doing a fair bit of tagging and patrolling. Basket of Puppies 16:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. BTW, there's now a backlog at CAT:SD :) MirrorLockup (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD now mostly clear. TNXMan 23:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – IP blocked for block evasion Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awhile back, there was an SPI open for ObserverNY (talk · contribs) as puppeting with an IP. The case was closed in this edit, with a note that if the IP continues then it should be blocked. That IP just made this edit. Should I open another SPI for this? Seems like it's something that doesn't need a case for; it's a pretty clear violation. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Should I leave a note on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ObserverNY/Archive or something? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to; I would think. NW (Talk) 23:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am rasing the concern that User mcjakeqcool's block was unfair and disproportionate, and it should be investigated by Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. In my opinion the biggest flaw was not letting User mcjakeqcool have his/her say at Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents, I have other concerns but I am not certain they are appropriate for Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. Also may I state that I have taken on board the unsolicited comments User Guyinblack25 has made on User mcjakeqcool's talk page, and I have taken on board what he/she has said or typed to be more acuate and I will work from NOW on with User Guyinblack25 and other users & may I state I have already worked with him. As I said above, the block was unfair & disproportionate, User mcjakeqcool should have had his/her say & finally I am working with user User Guyinblack25 other users, aswell as already doing so. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously referring to yourself in the third person? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block has expired. Learn from it and move on. Under Preferences > Editing there is a box marked "mark all edits minor by default". Make sure it is unchecked, that way you will have to fill in the check box to mark an edit as minor. If you forget to do that when making a minor edit no harm will be done. Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, every edit, including this complaint is still being marked as minor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jauerback - yes, he pretty much always refers to himself in the third person. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McJ - as far as I can see you've never 'worked with' GuyinBlack, or me, or Tim Song, or anyone else who has offered to help you. Could you define what you mean by 'work with'?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC there was substantial support for indef at the last thread, but I was of the view that Tan's one-week block might have some effect so as to avoid the need for indef. I think it is now apparent that he has no intention to follow WP norms, even after Guyinblack's detailed explanation on his talk page, and after Tan's warning that continuing his behavior may result in an indef block. As such, per Tan et al. and my comments on his talk page here, I'd support an indef block. Four ANI threads later, his presence is still not a net positive. Tim Song (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Mcj, it was the folks at WP:AN/I who imposed this ban on you. Any reasonable person would assume that any investigation by WP:AN/I will simply confirm that decision -- especially with the lack of evidence you have supplied to show that this decision was "unfair and disproportionate". (see this archived thread for further details.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on his talk page, McJackqcool has obviously learned nothing and refuses to edit according to how the community wishes, as such he's left us little choice. I support an indef.--Crossmr (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with those above who find Mcjakeqcool's actions bothersome. They have received multiple warnings and comments on his talk page to not mark non-minor edits as such and even received a one week block of editing privileges for it. What is the first thing Mcjakeqcool does when the block is lifted? Create a new section here at ANI and marks it minor. This is the fourth ANI discussion about this editor (admittedly, they opened it on themselves this time.) Mcjakeqcool does not get it, does not listen, does not cooperate. This has gone on too long. I'd support an indef block of editing privileges. --TreyGeek (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I haven't opened a thread to discuss a community ban about this user is that maybe he is actually working with Guyinblack. (It's what Mcj claims on his talk page.) So the moment Guyinblack reports here that mentoring Mcjakeqcool failed -- or he has not even heard from this alleged Brit rapper -- we should take that step. -- llywrch (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Guyinblack if he cares to comment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I'm a bit confused by Mcjakeqcool's comments. My communication with them has been very minimal. Though I've posted comments to their talk page, I have only gotten two responses back: first to "deny" adoption, and second to enlist my help. However, Mcjakeqcool have never come to me after that for help on articles or discussions.

So I can't say that we've ever worked together. Not like how I regularly do with WP:VG members. I would welcome a collaboration with Mcjakeqcool, but no such discussion has occurred on or off the Wiki to lead to that.

The only conclusions that come to mind are:

1. This user is not a fluent English speaker and has a limited and different understanding of many English words used here.
2. This user is just trying see what havoc they can cause and attention they can get.

I hope it's the first one. Either way, not being able to communicate with someone because they are unable to or unwilling to gives us few options. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed. But I'd rather exhaust all reasonable options before we resort to a community ban. The grounds for one would be, to put it bluntly, he's too stupid to edit Wikipedia. We should use that rationale as rarely as possible due to endless opportunities for misuse. -- llywrch (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use the term "stupid" but WP:COMPETENCE is sometimes cited with certain editors. A person who is absolutely brilliant but can't type well enough to be understood, or a person whose poor grasp of the English language precludes any positive contributions to the project are examples of people who aren't stupid at all but are still incapable of properly editing the encyclopedia. It's seems cruel but just because anyone can edit the encyclopedia, that doesn't mean everyone should. -- Atama頭 23:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've exhausted all reasonable options at this point. He's been blocked twice, he's had several editors reach out to him, his behaviour is evident elsewhere on the internet as I pointed out before and goes well beyond wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't reform school. The only willingness he's shown to "work" with the community is when facing an indefinite ban and so far that has proven rather fruitless. I cannot see any compelling reason to keep beating our head against the wall here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) According to off-wiki sources, McJ is born and raised in the UK. Now we do have a few communities where children are raised in a native language and start school without a full grasp of English, but McJ doesn't appear to belong to one of these communities. This is what McJ says himself about his grasp of english: I can speak in english, however I can only speak politically correct jargon, think of a MP and the houses of parlament, medical communication, police delacet etc. And also I do have poor english skills, and I am not reluctant to admit my english teacher gave me a F- in english. Also this is wikipeida, so we are MEANT to speak in jargon! This was in response to Chocobogamer and myself both asking him what this meant: I have seen proof that it exists with my own eyes, however I still it's existence and it is therefore orignal research In reply, he copied the text, and reposted it below our queries, as if we hadn't heard him. If you try saying his comments, and imagine a dub beat of some kind behind them, you can almost hear him speaking, so I think it's fair to say that his problems aren't just because he is being asked to use written English -he may be hard to follow when he is talking as well.

For me, he is more a nuisance than disruptive. Even the thing about the minor edits is just a nuisance - he never actually says anything on talk pages that make much sense. As I said before, he made a mistake a year ago about minor edits [93] and promised at that point to do it properly [94], but for some reason when he made the error more recently, he decided that he was right and Wikipedia was wrong. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Looks to be taken care of. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has threatened to sue Wikipedia, stating that his lawyers "will be contacting you shortly"... [95] Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 18:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now he has just threatened to sue me...[96] Also, I've notified him of the thread. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 18:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're now blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User on 3RR block, and SPI opened. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Left of Palin has been reverting edits without explanation on the article Susan Hutchison as well as Dow Constantine -- two local political candidates currently campaigning against each other for a November election. Left of Palin is only the latest of several SPAs and IPs from both camps to POV push on these articles. My initial invoIvement was to clean up a copyvio report, and I declined a request to protect it in August because of the limited amount of dispute at that time. It is probably a good idea to semi-protect the articles now during the election period. User talk:Left of Palin is also on the edge of edit warring. However, I am involved now, having spent some time neutralizing the two articles. I have also reverted edits from both sides, including twice with Left of Palin. My attempts to draw the editors into discussion have mostly failed -- I seem to be talking to myself at Talk:Susan Hutchison. I would appreciate a neutral pair of eyes to review the situation. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There might be an innocent explanation, but it looks like we might have a small sockfarm on our hands; see User talk:Left of Palin#Use of multiple accounts (diff). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socks make sense. I believe the explanation will be related to the original copyvio report -- which was eliminated by an OTRS permission from Hutchison's campaign website. I seem to recall one of them explaining that they worked in the campaign office. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's that possible sock account with the diff indicating they worked for Hutchison. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a Kevin Powell. :) When things get too far to the positive side, I find a {{COI}} label & listing helpful. That's presuming, of course, that sock matters straighten out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – 48h block issued. Warning given. --Xdamr^talk 22:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this diff and the one immediately before it and ban the person responsible. In addition, the attack proves conclusively that User:Portsmouth&Southsea is a sockpuppet of this individual, otherwise how could he possibly know that I have complained about P&S' edits? I have acted in good faith to stop someone pursuing an agenda and his reaction is quite simply that of someone who has been caught in the act. An indefinite ban is required as otherwise he will carry on in the same way and will resort to mindless abuse again when someone else challenges him. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the background to comment on the alleged sockpuppetry. But comments like this one are completely unacceptable and I have warned HampshireCricketFan (talk · contribs) for the incivility and personal attack. If such conduct is repeated I'll be willing to block the account. Abecedare (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment on your talk page, if you don't know enough about the "sockpuppetry", investigate it. Can I please have this matter attended to by another admin? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that this user is also responsible for this edit. Why hasn't he been banned? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No editor should have to suffer this kind of very personal attack made by Hampshire cricketfan on Blackjack, admin Abecedare has given him an only warning template, I would say such an attack is immediately worthy of a block as it is a really awful attack. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support immediate block, length of time to be determined by blocking admin. Basket of Puppies 22:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support immediate block, no editor should have to suffer such outrageous personal insults. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48h for gross incivility. Indef seems a little over the top at the moment, but happy for a longer block in event of any repetition. --Xdamr^talk 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User started vandalizing using 86.168.169.64 (talk), which too has now been blocked for 48 hours. Abecedare (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, makes me think a little close scrutiny might be in order once this editor's block expires... --Xdamr^talk 23:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, he says that he's done with wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He said that he wasn't coming back, so he might as well be indef blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indef out of the question for this single incident. Give it 48h, once all the drama has died down, and see how things are then. If merited, editors can always be re-blocked. --Xdamr^talk 23:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, very fair. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of you for getting involved with this complaint. It'll be interesting to see if he attempts a comeback. His problem was that he could not take the constructive criticism that he received when he prematurely (putting it mildly) nominated Hampshire CCC for FAC recently. I think he picked on me for his puerile outburst because I placed the recentism tag on the article, consensus among the reviewers being that recentism was its main failing; he twice removed that tag without trying to improve the article. I agree with Xdamr about scrutiny if he does return. Thanks again. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Groundstar83 has stated, repeatedly, that he is David Winning. He has been warned repeatedly on his talk page that he should not make edits to his own article and other related articles, but he continues to redo articles and to make articles that he primarily copy/pastes from IMDB and that contain numerous copyrighted images. His edits are heavily self-promoting and COI, in particular those to his own article in which he has managed to bloat in over 100 IMDB links...I have left him a warning on his page for the COI, but I think some admin oversight may be needed as this has apparently been going on since 05 and he continues returning to repeat the same inappropriate actions? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonadmin here, could you provide a diff to where he admits he is the person?--SKATER ^Speak. 01:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[97] also from some of his talk page posts, it seems like he also claimed it when someone questioned his upload of all these images. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's saying he was actual the assistant director,[98] but its still a COI issue and considering his continued ignoring of multiple warnings about stealing IMDB content, I'm inclined to still consider this an issue needing some admin checking, especially with the huge glut of non-free images he has uploaded and shoved in dozens of articles. I'm also finding it interesting that he has claimed to be Winning multiple times, such as when uploading images of "himself"[99], but now he is back-paddling after being told not to edit any Winning related article.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, he blanked the Winning article[100], though it was reverted. As he seems to have created it anyway, would it be enough for a CSD or is he considered notable enough that it would need some other process? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't CSD these. If a subject wants his article deleted and the subject meets WP:N then the matter should go to AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that speedy deletion from an author's request (G7) is only done if nobody else has really worked on the article. Technically, an IP "created" the article (Groundstar83 was actually the third editor to edit the article) though he may have been the IP. But the article is over 4 years old and has had many editors contributing to it. -- Atama頭 15:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]