This entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/History of the race and intelligence controversy to centralize discussion and to save space on ANI. –MuZemike 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Point of information: 120 Volt monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who initiated several subthreads, was a returning sockpuppet of banned user Jagz (talk · contribs), and has now been indefinitely blocked by Nishkid64. Mathsci (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs) is quite clearly an spa account, with whom I seem unable to have a calm and productive discussion. She apparently always starts assuming that those who do not agree with her are trying to censor her, or they are vandals who want to defame Knox and Sollecito. I would kindly ask you to read her latest edits, especially those here.

Here, by the way, you can see a sample of personal attacks and threats: edit summary, [1], [2], threat?, edit summary, edit summary, [3], threat, [4], edit summary, [5], [6], [7], edit summary, edit summary, [8], [9], [10], [11].

Could you please do something? We had a go at informal mediation, but she called it off, after being the one who had filed the request for it. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Salvio. I've tried (unsuccesfully) to explain our policies to the user but their view is quite clearly that "their" information must be included in the article regardless. Their view appears to be that mediation is fine as long as it reaches the same conclusion as them, and when it didn't, they said "fine, mediate with yourself". The article is already a horrible sprawling mess and the main issue is this user, for whom "NPOV" appears to equal "my POV". Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I had not yet seen this edit... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for goodness' sake - I hadn't seen that either. I'm not suggesting that's an NLT issue, but the language clearly indicates someone who's not here to edit collegially. I think we'd have to be looking at some sort of article restriction here? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio please stop with this harassment by you and your cohorts (including Black Kite) of repeatedly filing complaints and making personal attacks against me. The bullying going on with this article is simply ridiculous. I have repeatedly raised the issue with the bullying on this article and it just gets ignored, unless it is directed at the pro-guilt side of the case. If the insults and bullying are directed at the non-pro-guilt side of the case it gets ignored. This harassment effort is clearly intended to drive me, the sole remaining non-pro-guilt editor, off of the article, along with these efforts to delete much of my work.

As for the issue with the mediator, I felt uncomfortable with his position that all statements by lawyers are untrustworthy and should not be included in the article. I felt that showed a bias against allowing the views of the lawyers into the article, which would interfere with the inclusion of the views of the defense attornies. That is a perfectly legitimate concern of mediator bias. So I decided that I did not want to use him as the mediator, but I was reconsidering that. In the meantime, I have been hit with all kinds of insults and personal attacks just because I said did not want to proceed with him as the mediator. Because the administrators on here have NOT helped at all, and the mediator did not seem unbiased, I have felt that my only recourse is to contact someone higher up at the Wikipedia Foundation. That is not my first choice, but SOMEONE has to help with these BLP and NPOV issues that could result in defamation against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

At the same time there is a focus on deleting my hard work on this article. The pro-guilt editors keep removing, reverting, deleting my work, as the sole remaining person on the other side. The other editor who was on my side apparently gave up on the article today, feeling completely defeated and driven out. I don't have time now to post diffs or further discussion, but can do so tomorrow.

This follows the recent incident where I was called a "cunt" and other foul language was used and nothing was done against that person. Also someone recently posted a false "BREAKING NEWS" report that Amanda Knox, the defendant they keep trying to paint in a bad light, committed suicide. That false report was left as a "breaking news" headline at the top of the article for two hours and no one did anything about it. The information spread to the Newsweek site, as well as Zimbio and other places on the Internet. Nothing was done to the person who posted the false report. Then the other non-pro-guilt person posted a minor joking remark and was blocked for a day. He is so discouraged he probably will not be back. So it is just me left as the sole person raising the issues of BLP and NPOV seeking to have the defense views included, and not just the pro-guilt/prosecution views. But I would say that facing all this deletion of my work as the sole remaining person on the other side of the case is an impossible situation. There needs to be an administrator who will please stop the bullying and one sided-deletions going on with this article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite is NOT an impartial observer. He posts WITH the pro-guilt editors against me, so having me blocked or banned would help his cause. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sums the problems up well, though not in the way the user probably intended. They admit to pushing a particular POV "non-pro-guilt editor" and sums up anyone who disagrees with them as a "pro-guilt" editor, despite the fact that (as the talkpage and article history shows clearly) that those editors are merely trying to ensure that the article conforms to our policies. Incidentally, I have edited the article precisely once (to fix a factual error), and I am categorised as having a POV. So the question is, in which direction do we go? Dispute resolution is clearly going to be useless here, so we are left with article enforcement or WP:RFC/U. Thoughts? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, you have made your bias clear on the Talk page, including posting a personal attack against me, which I had to ask another administrator to have you remove. You would just love to eliminate the only editor left on the other side. But that is just so unfair and detrimental to Wikipedia to allow harassment against a minority view editor to remove that contrary view from the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that you were unable to be neutral on this article was hardly a personal attack (especially as it's clearly true, as you're proving here). Nevertheless, far better than "eliminating" an editor here would be for that editor to at least attempt to work collegially with everyone else. However, you are so adamant that everything you put into the article is necessary, correct and needs to stay, and most things that other editors do is wrong, that it is impossible to do so at the moment. The article would improve far quicker with reasonable input from all interested editors. At the moment you are preventing that from happening by attempting to argue against everything that is being suggested, even when it has consensus from many editors. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't what you said. The administator asked you to remove the language where you said words to the effect: you are so emotional you are incapable of NPOV editing, along with other personal remarks directed at me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That exactly what I said, and here's the diff - "It also appears clear from your emotive language that you aren't capable of taking a neutral viewpoint on this issue". Not a personal attack; I removed it only because it wasn't helpful. There weren't any other "personal remarks". Black Kite (t) (c) 00:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To deny there are two camps on this article, and have been for a long while, is ridiculous. There are editors who consistently edit in a manner tending to paint Amanda Knox and Raffaele as guilty of sexual assault and murder and delete anything that does not agree with that view. I have tried to include the minority view that they might be innocent, as they claim, but I am vastly outnumbered. Now, you try to eliminate me entirely. Now, once you succeed in harassing me off the article or getting me banned, the hundreds of hours I have put into this article in research and writing will all be deleted. That is the goal. And that is so unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty hard to be collegial when you are constantly harassed, insulted, attacked, sworn at, and these endless attempts by Salvio and crew to get me banned from the article. Yes, I am upset but how would you like being treated like this, and being all alone as the sole remaining minority editor. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the mediation, to put me up on charges over objecting to mediator bias is utterly ridiculous. The proposed informal mediator (who had no prior experience mediating) made repeated statements that lawyers are untrustworthy, that they do not tell the truth, that they are not truthful even when they express their opinions, so the views and opinions of the lawyers should not be included in the article. This injected a major stumbling block to including the defense side of the story, since the defense view could only come through the lawyers for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I felt that the position taken by the mediator was extreme, since there is no rule at Wikipedia saying that lawyers are so untrustworthy or dishonest that their opinions cannot be included in the article. I felt that this was a bias that would interfere with NPOV, so I did not want to start mediation with him in a few days as scheduled. However, he asked me to reconsider and think it over and I was doing that. These statements by Salvio and Black Kite implying or suggesting that mediation was tried and failed are false. The mediation had not yet started. It was expressly agreed that it would not start till April 30. So, I had to give notice prior to that day if I did not want to go forward. Furthermore, this informal mediator had never done mediation before, so I only provisionally agreed to try him out with the understanding that nothing would officially start till April 30. Given his extreme views on lawyers, and the importance of the views of the defense lawyers in the article, he did not seem the best choice to me as a mediator, but I was reconsidering. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You propose mediation, put it on hold, and then pull out, even though the mediator you balked at suggested a replacement mediator. Not very reasonable. You insist that all your edits stick and none of your wording be edited, in violation of WP:OWN. Not very reasonable. You extensively use non-English primary sources and you insist on including too much information, turning what should be a summary article of the information available in reliable secondary sources into an impenetrable blow-by-blow account. Every comment you leave on talk pages and noticeboards is a wall of text arguing that you are being persecuted and bullied, while providing scant support for this claim. Please stop this pattern. You cannot use Wikipedia to 'right great wrongs' - we are not investigative reporters and Wikipedia has no opinion. Your advocacy for Amanda Knox is appropriate for a blog or website, but not for a neutral encyclopedia article. Continuing to disrupt the editing of this article in this manner will end with you being blocked. You can avoid this by altering how you approach editing. Please take the advice I give to any single-purpose editor: edit articles on something totally unrelated for a while, to get a break and to better learn what it is to be a Wikipedian rather than an activist. Fences&Windows 01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• [ The main source is not a primary source; see subtopic below: #Micheli Judgment link is secondary source for Kercher case. -Wikid77 06:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ]

I have asked for help and you attack me like this, including many false accusations. When have I ever used non-English sources, maybe one or two out of hundreds of sources that I have added? You accuse me of making up the claim that I am being treated badly, without even knowing the facts? You suggest that I refused a substitute mediator unreasonably, when I stated that I was reconsidering the first person? You say that I unreasonably refuse to allow my work to be edited, when many hundreds of my edits have been removed, likely more than any other editor on that article has ever been subjected to. Yet there is no help for me, only blame. Over and over I have asked for help and it is ignored. I guess the only real recourse left is indeed as I thought. I will write to the Wikipedia Foundation about how this is being handled. I will set the whole thing out in detail for them to look at, and maybe then I can get some help. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly where reconsidering the first person (Hipocrite), what exactly held you up to do so?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was very busy but trying to watch his edits. I saw that he defended me from a personal attack---the first person on this site ever to do that. I also saw that he wrote that he intended to demonstrate through his handling of issues that he and I really did not have major differences in views and that he in fact agreed with me on many things and we could work together well. So I wanted to watch, as he expressly suggested, and then make up my mind. But there has to be help somewhere, someone has to help with this distressing situation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I saw that he defended me from a personal attack"

Believe it or not but he wasn't the first and won't be the last. That includes even me, like it or not: [12] [13] [14]

"So I wanted to watch, as he expressly suggested, and then make up my mind."

And what changed your mind (since you stated "I was reconsidering the first person.")? What exactly did he say or do after you withdrew from mediation that led you to dismiss your reconsideration?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to misrepresent the situation. I never dismissed my reconsideration. I just got tied up with this utter nonsense on here instead. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I.m.o., Zlykinskyja should take things less seriously. It is well known that Wikipedia is not so reliable when it comes to controversial non-scientific topics. So, spending a lot of much energy to make these types of articles better can be a complete waste of time. Let me give a typical example of this. Consider the case of Barry George. He was convicted for the murder of Jill Dando, but this conviction was later overturned. Now, all the relevant facts of this case that are known today were in the public domain many years ago.

It was a BBC documentary a long time ago that brought to light the facts that proved that the conviction was unsafe. The BBC handed the information they had over to the Criminal Cases Reviews Commisions and Barry was eventually acquitted. Now, if you look back at the editing history of the Barry George article, you see that you always have an article that is very biased toward the prosecution POV, right until the moment a court actually makes a ruling in favor of the defense position, even though those rulings were pure formalities.

Had the editors been better at writing a truly NPOV article, they could have written the article as it is now way back in 2006 when the BBC had made the documentary (except for the fact that Barry would still be in prison, of course). What you see instead is that while the evidence from the BBC documentary is edited in the article at the time, some time later other editors edit in some of the by then completely irrelevant arguments in favor of the prosecution. So, you get a "false neutrality" effect that is hard for any single editor to correct. Count Iblis (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing a little soothing comfort. I can use some. I will check out the article you suggest tomorrow. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why has no one pointed Zlykinskyja to the No Legal Threat policy, and blocked her? Woogee (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because Zlykinskyja's explanations of the actions are not actually legal threats, but rather issues of policies such as WP:Wikihounding, or keeping the article neutral, per WP:NPOV. The basic intent was to establish some article-specific guidelines, as to how the suspects would be labeled (hint: not as "the 3 killers"), and include the Italian legal status that Knox/Sollecito are not jailed for the verdict (while on appeal still "presumed innocent") but perhaps as flight risks or such. Those would be "rules of procedure" for editing the article, as a more advanced issue than just following the British English spellings. Perhaps an attorney at the Wikimedia Foundation could help establish a policy that allows editors to set warnings, linked to an article tag-box, as to which "hot-button" phrases would be designated from exclusion in an article. I think it would be great to get some direct input, from Wikimedia, as to what wording to follow (or are the policies sufficient). For example, excluding the term "gang rapists" for 3 people not even proven to have met together previously. Such a list of ground rules would be documented, so that other editors, coming to an article, would get a summary of do-and-don't actions that apply. Perhaps this might become a common practice as subpage "/rules" for each affected article "Talk:ArticleX/rules". Please don't think that anyone is intending to sue Wikipedia, but just help to improve the rules about neutral wording. Does that seem clear? -Wikid77 06:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I will refer this matter to the attorneys at the Wikipedia Foundation is not a legal threat? Woogee (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you can't threaten Wikipedia with Wikipedia's attorneys. Abductive (reasoning) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Kind of resembles a legal threat towards some of the editors though. Might not violate the letter of the policy, but sure sounds like it's flirting with it in spirit. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't, although if you put it in perspective with this clear legal thread they made here narrows the interpretation.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A legal threat means to threaten to take legal action, such as suing Wikipedia or suing someone. Saying you are going to file a complaint with a higher-up person at Wikipedia or write a letter so that some of the issues can be addressed is not a legal threat. It is not an intention to sue anyone, but to provide notice of the problem to those who have the knowledge and abilty to solve a problem that is not otherwise being correctly addressed. That is all that was intended. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's against policy as well, I believe. If you don't agree with a decision, you try to shift consensus so that your preferred version will prevail. You most definitely do not go shopping for a sympathetic ear. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 1

Could we please concentrate on the issue at hand (namely Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs)'s behaviour)? I think we really need someone to step in: take a look at her edits and her edit summaries. It's not a matter of content, it's a matter of uncollegial demeanour. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 09:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all appropriate for one of the feuding editor's, a non-administrator, to remove another editor's comments here as Quantpole did, by placing Wikid's comments in a hat. Wikid was responding to the erroneous claim that I had used non-English sources extensively and inappropriately. Only an administrator should remove or enclose an editor's comments on this Board. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If an administrator believes that Wikid77's comments are relevant to the discussion here they are more than welcome to un-hat. Quantpole (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking at the editing page, Salvio has characterized me in his last edit as a "vandal". That could not be more untrue. I have spent hundreds of hours researching and writing and trying to do a good job, despite being subjected to a great deal of harassment while simply trying to participate as a minority editor. I have been attacked over and over, and my work has been deleted amd reverted over and over, even while I was simply in the act of typing my edits into the article. Literally, my very legitimate edits have been deleted as I was typing them! So, there needs to be a consideration of the actions of Salvio and his cohorts towards me, not just a consideration of my very distressed responses to the abuses that have been going on. To say my responses have not been "congenial", while not looking at how I have been treated, is unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never written anywhere you're a vandal — which I do not think you are —. I used the only template I knew that would show your talk page and your contribs. It does not mean I think you're a vandal.

My opinion is that you're a POV-pushing, self-righteous WP:SPA, but not a vandal: you honestly believe you're trying to make the article better. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. Even the comment of an entirely uninvolved admin inviting her to refactor a comment was seen as biased [15]. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio--you also push your POV that the prosecutor in this case could do no wrong. You allow no negative comments of him or the Italian legal system. You oppose any of my work that shows otherwise. Why is it wrongful POV for me to include doubts about the prosecution's case, but not inappropriate POV for you to oppose any material presenting such doubts? You paint me as a wrongdoer, but you are pushing a POV just as much. There are many questions and doubts about the behavior of the prosecutor presented in the US media. CBS News, 48 Hours TV Program, and others have repeatedly raised the issue that he has relied on a psychic, and has prosecuted over 20 people in the last two years for satanic or Black Mass type activities or efforts to cover that up. He is seriously doubted in the US media. He has been convicted of abuse of office, and has been barred for life from ever holding public office (pending appeal). But my efforts to include the views presented in the US media are opposed. You allow no questioning of his work. You want me silenced. I post as a minority editor, but the information I have tried to include is very much mainstream US media. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no one should be typing comments in here in out of sequence--a type of refactoring-- and then failing to sign and date the post. That it very unfair because it makes it difficult for me to respond. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on the article can de found here:

My point is that, in doing this — I mean to try and write a NPOV article, which is what we are all trying to do, I think —, we may risk defaming the prosecution or the members of the Court of Assize, if we're not careful; this is a good example of what I mean: In terms of Mignini's stupidity, well that was clearly shown in the documentary. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and

No, but that shows what you think of Mignini... In Italy, you can criticize, even harshly, a verdict (that's why our Judges publish written motivations: to allow for public review of their decisions), but not the Magistrates themselves as persons (attacks such as "mentally unstable" or whatever). I saw the documentary and I deemed it extremely POV. That's the prerogative of TLC, of course, but, still, I hope this article will be far more balanced. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's my only POV as far the article is concerned. I've already stated and iterate that, quite frankly, I do not really care whether or not Amanda Knox is guilty: I'll stick with whatever the Appellate Court will decide, since I think that they're in a better position than us to render a judgement based upon the evidence presented at trial. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to note that Zlykinskyja previously edited under a different username. I'm not quite sure why they did not get their old account renamed, but I do not think there is any impropriety going on, but it is relevant to see their full history of editing on this article. Please also note User talk:Zlykinskyja, which is full of bad faith characterisations from both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77. I agree with Salvio above in that the two users absolutely think they are the ones upholding NPOV, and cannot see any problems with their behaviour. I have only been involved in this subject for less than a week (after reviewing some images uploaded by Wikid77 that were up for deletion). It is very clear to me from that short time that both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 are treating this subject as a battlefield and respond to disagreement with accusations of non-neutrality. Though both users have edited other articles they have effectively become single purpose accounts regarding this issue. As can be seen from the aborted mediation, this issue is not going to be solved through discussion. I suggest that both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 be topic banned form this subject. Quantpole (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You claim Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 have become single-purpose accounts, when Zlykinskyja recently corrected another of the most important crime articles in modern British history, and I have modified templates that have drastically improved over 370,000 articles? You don't even have the slightest clue who you are talking about here. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If Zlykinskyja = that user, they should definitely not be editing this article, as we've been here with exactly the same issues before ([16]). Their block log appears to show them being blocked for sockpuppetry mainly regarding the article as well (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikid77). Oh, and the userpage that said this. Now that probably tells you a lot.Black Kite (t) (c) 12:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to avoid mentioning their name specifically given what they say on their userpage. I didn't think they were particularly trying to hide the link, given they explain the whole situation on the userpage (without specifically mentioning the other account, but it is obvious that it is the one they are talking about). I don't know the situation regarding any previous blocks so I didn't comment on that. Quantpole (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if it is proper for me to cast a !vote, since I'm not an admin and am an involved editor, but I strongly support Quantpole's proposal to topic ban at least Zlykinskyja... If it is not appropriate of me, please strike out my comment and accept my apology. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, editors with opposing POV on the article do not have a "vote" to ban another editor with opposing views, as is being attempted here. None of this should be going on. This is not fair or legitimate in the least. This is an attempt to utilize the administrative process to get some administrator who does not really know what is going on to do your dirty work for you so that you can silence my minority view on the article. This is an abuse of the process. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think it's actually an attempt to address a major problem for the article, which is that Zlykinskyja is not prepared to engage with other editors in the consensus process. I think if any administrator cares to look at the article talk page or any of the talk page archives, they will see this repeated pattern of behaviour. Instead of seeking consensus, Zlykinskyja prefers to add material to the article (which she probably genuinely believes improves its neutrality). Those who disagree, must either put up with this or enter into an edit war amid a torrent of accusations of censorship, bias and harrassment. Hence the abysmal state of the article. But I don't know what the solution is. If Zlykinskyja disagrees with this, perhaps she would provide a few diffs showing examples of cases where she has tried to engage in consensus-building, and I shall be pleased to admit I'm wrong. Bluewave (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a gang-up situation by the editors on this article who oppose me and Wikid77 because we hold minority views that differ from theirs. We are vastly outnumbered. Now they propose that we both be banned. It is part of an extremely upsetting pattern of harassment. While I do not agree with the views of these people on the article, I have never engaged in the type of horribly aggressive treatment against them that they have employed against me. These gang-ups have been all one-way, with them coming after me over and over in an attempt to get me banned or blocked to silence my views. This is not "consensus building", this is not "collegial". This is harassment. This is an aggressive attempt to silence minority views on the article. Removing the minority view will result in BLP violations and NPOV violations, since these people who are part of the gang-up all hold the same views on the case. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have called this situation to the attention of administrators over and over and no one will help. I posted on the ANI Board about this, and an administrator responded by typing out a string of laughter and then marking the matter as "Resolved". But no, it wasn't resolved. And the attacks against me just continue.

It is very disturbing that Black Kite very misleadingly posted a link to a complaint against me from 2009 which he suggests indicates that I had been reprimanded on this article before, and therefore I should "definitely not be editing this article." Yet he misleadingly did not link to the final version, which showed the OUTCOME of the complaint. The complaint was marked as closed by BigTimePeace as a "content dispute", not my misconduct:

Archiving. There does not seem to be a need for an administrative action here. The basic call has been for an admin to take a look at the situation and I am in the process of doing that and will soon post a note on the article talk page with some thoughts, but the core issue seems to be a content dispute (the exact nature is unclear) and some ill-advised comments by multiple parties. Further discussion here is not going to be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And that is indeed what it is, a "content dispute" but some very aggressive people have tried to make it very personal against me. They just WILL NOT focus on the real issues, the BLP and NPOV issues, and instead make it PERSONAL. It is very, very upsetting. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite also misleadingly links to a deleted version of the old account that I used. I deleted that, but he dug it up and did not note that it had been long ago deleted. As for the sock puppet issue, I explain that in detail on my current user page. It is there for anyone to see who wants to know the truth and not just concoct allegations and mislead people. As set forth in detail on my user page, I once attempted to change my name for legitimate privacy reasons but did not do it properly in that I failed to mark the old account as "Retired". So I was blocked since it looked like I was trying to have two accounts, when really I intended to switch to a new name. In any event, I paid my debt to society with a long block issued BEFORE I was even given the chance to explain what I was trying to do--a simple innocent name change. So I don't see how that is even relevant. I use only one account now and that old account has been officially retired for quite a while and has not been used since. So to bring that up is just to try and throw the kitchen sink at me and get me blocked for something that has no current relevancy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are some more recent ANI threads for more insight: [17] and [18].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There you tried very aggressively to get me banned or blocked after you WikiHounded me, including MAKING UP the false allegation that I had engaged in vandalism. There were no findings against me, and it later was established that your claim that I engaged in vandalism was baseless since it was a SOFTWARE problem. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See also: edit warring I and edit warring II. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the edits concerning THE FALSE BREAKING NEWS REPORT OF THE SUICIDE OF AMANDA KNOX, that matter was so serious and so wrongful, that I will need to prepare a more detailed description of what happened there. But I will just say that posting a notice to correct the false report on Wikipedia of her suicide was justified under the circumstances. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AND MY POV OPPONENTS CONTINUE WITH THEIR UNRELENTING GANG-UP!

Zlykinskyja posted one of a series of messages immediately after my post, so I'm taking it that this was at least partly aimed at me. So just to clear up a few misconceptions:

• I don't think I have ever said that Z should be banned. If I have, please provide a diff.
• I don't think I have ever engaged in "horribly aggressive treatment of Z. If I have, please provide a diff and I will apologise.
• Z says she has not engaged in such conduct against me. Well, what about accusing me of hypocricy,[19], effectively of being a sockpuppet of User:FormerIP,[20], anti-American editing,[21] accusations of POV editing,[22] and cherry picking facts,[23][24]not being fit to edit a particular section because of my POV edits,[25][26][27] "conspiring to obstruct another editor" and getting "meatpuppets to do my dirty work".[28]. To be fair, the worst of these kind of accusations have not been repeated recently.
• Yes there are different views about the case. But there are probably as many views as there are people - not just the two views that Z tries to use to characterize editors. The only way to reconcile these views is through consensus but that is virtually impossible when one very vocal and opinionated person will not engage in the consensus process.

Bluewave (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bluewave, you are engaging in deliberate tactics acting in concert with editors on the same side of the case with you, to try and personally attack me and paint this dispute as personal, when you know the REAL issue is that you and I write/edit in diametricaly opposed views on this case. You write/edit consistently in a pro-guilt manner, while I try to add the other side, to create NPOV balance. THAT is the real reason why you want me sanctioned or banned from the article. You want to eliminate your SOLE REMAINING POV opponent (considering that Wikid has indicated that he is too upset to continue on the article). And I find this all very low, and very dirty pool. This conduct in ganging up against an editor with whom you consistently hold opposing views on the CONTENT, and participating in these long sessions of personal attacks, and taking up hours and hours of my time with these attacks, is just a horrible way to treat another person. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My "tactics" were to point out some factual errors in a post which seemed to be trying to portray me as someone who has engaged in horribly aggressive treatment and Zlykinskyja as the blameless victim. I don't like being portrayed in that way, as I do not believe it is true (where are the diffs?). I also do not appreciate being described as writing in a "pro-guilt manner" (where are the diffs?). And I didn't ask for Z to be banned (and never have, as far as I remember), but actually said "I don't know what the solution is". And I still don't. Bluewave (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bluewave, it is plainly obvious what you are trying to do and I find this whole thing unbelievably vicious. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as for Salvio's claim that he is not POV, I dispute that. He has said he does not want any criticisms of the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini or the Italian court that found Amanda Knox guilty. Yet, if the other side of the case, the non-pro-guilt side, is to be included in the article, it has to include information about the problems with the Prosecutor and how he handled the case. So Salvio basically is against including anything that might show how the case against Amanda Knox was defective, if it paints the prosecutor or court in a negative light. He is from Italy and he has made it clear that he is on the article to protect the image of the Italian prosecutor and the Italian court. But that is indeed POV editing on his part.Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shan't even bother to respond to this umpteenth groundless and gratuitous personal attack.

That said, this thread risks becoming disjointed, just like the other one. Can please some uninvolved editors and/or admins step in and discuss how to deal with Zlykinskyja?

At the moment, a proposal was made to topic ban her and I wholeheartedly second it. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course Salvio wants me topic banned. According to Salvio, I can't even say anything on my own Talk page that is negative towards the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. He has repeatedly objected to the fact that I said on my Talk page that Mignini's investigation of a break-in was done "stupidly." So this he claims might be "defamation." Meanwhile the US media paints Mignini as a crazy person, and Mignini has been banned from holding public office for wiretapping journalists. But on Wikipedia, NO CRITICISM OF THE CASE/PROSECUTOR ALLOWED, not even on an editor's private Talk page. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to all pages, including user's talkpages. That distinguish WP from blogs and forums.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop posting out of sequence like you have been doing. Plus, it is ridiculous to say that making a slight criticism of a public figure is defamation or a violation of BLP. Meanwhile, people on here paint the accused as guilty of sexual assault and murder, when no one even know yet that that is true. So it sure seems like different standards are being used. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what CBS news has to say about Salvio's collegue, Giuliano Mignini, the one we can't say anything negative about on Wikipedia, according to Salvio: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20003238-504083.html#addcomm Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said somethong else: In terms of Mignini's stupidity, well that was clearly shown in the documentary. And I objected about it only once (twice, if you count the fact I quoted myself here). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious disruptive SPA, indefinite topic ban. Why are we even allowing this to waste time here. Physchim62 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, the positions that you have taken repeatedly have made it clear that you don't want certain information coming out in the article that could be damaging to the Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. Yet in the views of the mainstream US media, there are VERY serious problems with the conduct of this prosecutor and his handling of the case, and VERY serious problems with this murder conviction of Amanda Knox. I am being obstructed and intimididated from trying to include what the US media is saying about this case and MOST of the people doing this are from Italy, England and other European countries (excluding Magnificient). Once you get me banned as you have been trying so hard to do, the mainstream US media view and the entire defense side of this article will be eliminated. THAT IS YOUR GOAL. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this is a waste of my time as well, but I have put a huge amount of time into this article and am being treated very badly. BOTH sides of the story should be looked at, not just tossed off like an old dish rag. No editor deserves treatment like that. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing how much time I have put into this, and how over and over I have asked administrators for help, and have never received any, I will simply proceed to do what I should have done long ago, and contact the Wikipedia Main Office for help. Good day. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

• Rather than a complete topic ban, I think a one month restriction on editing the article itself could be applied while they're still being allowed to edit the article's talkpage which would give the editor the opportunity to work on and improve her lack of collaborating skills (which are w/o doubt apparent).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but given this editor's history of uncollegial behaviour, I think we would be facing the usual claims of bad faith and censorship, whenever we were to disagree with her on one of her proposals; quite frankly, I think it would actually make thing worse. My proposal is an indefinite topic ban: let her show that she can work and cooperate with other editors on less controversial issues and then, when the Wikipedia community is satisfied that she has learnt to accept opinions different from her own, this restriction will be lifted. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A complete MoMK topic ban would equal a general ban since they're only interest lays in that area and (I think) the result would be that they stop editing at all till the topic ban is lifted [We can assume that it would sooner or later] and thus there would be no learning experience for them and the same editor would probably resume with the same approach as they did in the past (since December last year, to be precise). I don't think that would help neither the article nor the editor. Any measures taken and remedies applied should be preventative, not punishment, and should be applied to prevent disruption of the project. I think my proposal does take those things into account and has potential to work as intended.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and concur with you up to a point. My fear comes from the fact that this user does not appear to wish to change her behaviour (just take a look at what she's just written about me... ^{She has refactored her comment, so that it's no longer a personal attack 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)}) and that, so, we risk starting flame after flame on the talk page... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't change their behavior a full topic ban can still be imposed if needed.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's give it a try. I change my !vote to match your proposal. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion! Bluewave (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can an uninvolved admin please step in and decide what should we do with Zlykinskyja? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think a ban from the article that originally caused the problem (indefinitely) would be apt. The user is, as said above, a self righteous, antagonistic proponent of THE TRUTH, with some highly combative manners when it comes to editing - however it seems that the primary cause is the content of the original article concerned. Is it not likely that constructive editing in other areas seen as uncontroversial by the user would take place after being banned from the article? If this fails, it only results in blocking for violating the ban, and that would suite the wants of some of the more hard-nosed proposals anyway. SGGH ^ping! 21:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that I am a proponent of the "truth", but only that both the prosecution AND defense sides of the story should be included in the Article. The essence of the dispute is NPOV, not "truth." The truth cannot yet be known because there has not been a final determination of innocence or guilt of the murder in any court. So, I certainly cannot claim to know the "truth." I only claim that both the guilty views and the innocence views be included in the article, and that the Article not be worded to show guilt when that has not yet been finally determined, and the accused are still presumed innocent. The main people on the article with me (who have the most at stake and are the main complainers) The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, Bluewave and Salvio have said right above they do NOT want an indefinite topic ban, but are instead seeking a more moderate remedy. They propose that I stop editing the Article for a month, but continue participating in the discussions on the Article Talk page. While I do not agree that I should be sanctioned at all, I agree with the approach of not editing the Article for a short while, as opposed to a total topic ban. This way, there is not a tossing away of all of my research and knowledge on this case, which is extensive.

The Magnificent Clean-Keeper has correctly noted above that: "A complete MoMK topic ban would equal a general ban...." A total permanent ban from the Article would be way too unfair, and would essentially be a total ban from Wikipedia, because I could not continue volunteering here with such a grossly unfair sentence being inflicted on me. I am not a SPA. That is a totally false accusation. I have previously edited extensively on a colonial history article. I have well over 500 edits on this Kercher Murder Article, and previously over 450 edits on a totally unrelated colonial history article. All this means is that I tend to work on one article at a time and can get too obsessed because I am very dedicated about any projects that I work on in real life or on here. But it does not mean that I am a SPA with some sort of conflict of interest in this article or hidden agenda. So for editors who are too dedicated, maybe taking a voluntary break from editing the topic is a good idea. But if I get permanently banned from the murder Article for being a SPA, that would be so unfair and untrue that I would not feel comfortable volunteering here on my other main interest, which is US history topics, and my volunteer efforts here would just be all thrown away. If dedicated editors are just casually tossed away like that on untrue claims of being a SPA, eventually Wikipedia will run out of editors. Being dedicated is not the same thing as being a SPA.

The three main editors editing in opposition to me on the article: The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, Bluewave and Salvio have all said that they now do not support an indefinite topic ban, and have voted against it. That should resolve the matter. The other two editors who posted on this thread made only one edit each on the Article just prior to the start of this thread, and their efforts to now totally and permanently topic ban an editor who has been so dedicated as to make over 500 edits on the Article should be without standing. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restoring this thread, because it was archived before reaching a decision. Can an admin please assess consensus and decide what type of sanction to issue? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that any sanction should be issued or that this thread needed to be restored. This is unnecessary. I have already agreed, as stated above, to take a voluntary break from editing the Article for a month to cool off. Perhaps my compromise was missed in this rather disjointed thread. My compromise is reasonable and is basically consistent with what others have suggested above. This is a two sided dispute. There have been uncollegial comments on both sides of the dispute. To "punish" one side and not the other is unequal and unfair. This is clearly a content dispute that breaks down into the pro-prosecution view vs. the pro-innocence view. The pro-guilty editors disagree with me due to my efforts to include "the other side of the story". This was clearly stated by a recent post by an editor who also called me a "bitch" and has made other harassing remarks due to my efforts to include the "other side of the story." To punish editors who post one side of the story, but impose no sanctions when editors on the other side say such things as--- "bitch", "cunt", use the "F" word, post a false report that Amanda Knox commited suicide, and claim that I should not be allowed to write due to having a different viewpoint---would be grossly unfair. So I have agreed to compromise by taking a one month break from editing the article, but continue on the Talk page, as the others suggested--with the only difference being whether the break is voluntary or involuntary. But I am not willing to accept a one sided punishment, when the uncollegialty on the other side is not being punished or even addressed in any effective manner. The policies should be applied equally to both sides of the dispute. If not, then this matter should go on to some sort of arbitration, appeal or whatever procedure is appropriate for higher review. To me, a simple compromise would be a more efficient use of everyone's time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is particularly distressing when all or most of the people opposing me are men and words like "bitch" and "cunt" are used towards me, and they say nothing about seeking sanctions for the use of such words against a woman editor. The diffs posted with the filing of this complaint show mostly that I complained of being harassed. They show no use of improper language. Yet, such complaints by me were deemed "uncollegial." Then, the vulgar, sexist and demeaning language and personal attacks against me are ignored and not made the subject of any official complaint or sanctions. If "collegialty" is really the issue, then double standards like this should not be employed in imposing sanctions. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you voluntarily accept to refrain from editing the article main page for a month, then I'd guess that no admin action is required... That's what we were asking for. If nobody objects, then I'll no longer un-archive this thread. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of proposed remedies

(Note: Comment made prior to the last postings above of The Magnificent Clean-Keeper and Salvio) This is just treating a person like trash who has donated hundreds of hours and spent funds researching and contributing to this article and Wikipedia. I have never encountered such a grossly unfair procedure in my life. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I note that topic bans on here are usually done in an organized and formal manner, with voting. There is a type of formality and fairness to the process, with it usually being expressly stated at the outset that there is a proposal for a topic ban. I was deprived of all of that procedural fairness entirely, since this thread did not start out as a topic ban proposal, but just a complaint. There were only two people who seemed to advocate for a topic ban later on. There was no voting or formality to it. It was just a haphazard discussion which seemed to suddenly end up as a topic ban after Salvio said he wanted that, but now I see he has posted above that he changed his mind, and also that another commenter has suggested a more moderate approach. That would seem fairer, given that lack of proper procedure in this thread compared to other threads involving topic bans. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't respond to your attacks and else but to one point.

There is an overwhelming number of editors that spent not hundreds but thousands of hours on this project and like you, they donated their time and effort and yet, most of them do not complain about their edits being edited or even reversed. Try to think about it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can be as angry as you like. The facts of the matter are that you are a disruptive WP:SPA who will not edit colliegially with other editors, and has previously been blocked for edit-warring disruptively with a sockpuppet account on your pet article. You display a disregard for everyone who disagrees with your POV edits (which is practically everyone editing the article, unsurprisingly) and try to claim that every other editor is biased whereas in reality they are only trying to make the article conform to Wikipedia policy (for example, I had edited the article once, and was immediately accused by you). You are a time sink for every other editor here and are degrading Wikipedia with your edits, both under this username, your previous username, and your sockpuppets. All that remains is for an uninvolved admin to step up to the plate and solve this problem. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite: Your latest attack is just another example of the very mean spirited manner in which you have proceeded. The horrible way you have gone after me speaks volumes. You have misrepresented many things and provided false and misleading links. Then you say I'm uncollegial. Enough. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which part is false? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of it. But there is no point in going over it all again with a person so full of animosity towards me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the point, really, isn't it? Every point I made is factual - you can't rebut any of it. I don't have any animosity towards you as a person, only against the way in which you are causing problems in this article. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Z.: What I see (and this is a fact) is that you promised to provide diffs here and in the previous ANI and Wikiquette thread, yet you didn't provide them then and keep making accusation here and still don't back them up (with diffs). Guess there aren't any in your favor and you keep pushing your unfounded accusations with hot air as a backup. Pretty lame arguments, I'd say.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained, I have had a hard time preparing diffs and have only figured out a couple. I suppose I could have practiced, but I never got the hang of it. Plus, it is hard to spend that kind of time when there is a hoard of people on this thread attacking you, all at the same time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just what I expected: Another lame excuse. Several editors gave you links to help pages for diffs and Wikid, your favorite editor even posted a step by step guide on how to make diffs. That was weeks ago so you had plenty of time to learn this very simple task and keep your promises. Any better excuse on hand?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's like knitting. You need to practice or you don't get the knack for it.Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's at least a funny excuse. Thanks for making me smile :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite: The explanation for my name change was on my user page for a long time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zlykinskyja Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and you were blocked for edit warring for the first time with this sock account (like you didn't care).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a while, but as I recall the block was for the sock puppet issue, although it was not clarified. The finding in that against me was sock puppet, due to my improper name change without following the requirement of properly marking the original account as "Retired." Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You might want to check your block log: [29]. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the finding I recall was that the editor who removed the well sourced text was in the wrong. But since I was perceived as being a sock when I tried to change my name without marking my original account as Retired, I was perceived to be in the greater wrong. But that debt to society was well paid for I would say. Check the detailed explanation on my User page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ZlykinskyjaZlykinskyja (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion to Zlykinskyja would be to consider the fact that Knox is not the only person who is wrongfully convicted by a corrupted justice system. Now, I think you feel that you have reached a stalemate when editing this article. This means that expeding more energy here is wasted energy. What you could do is start new articles on other cases where any reasonable person can see that the jailed person is very likely innocent. I can give you a list of hundreds of such cases. If you slowly start writing articles on these other cases, then that would be a far more productive use of your time.

Another important factor here is that the situation the jailed persons are in does not evolve fast; it can takes years for new appeals to be heard. If you only edit the case of a single person then this means that you end up arguing on the basis of the same old facts day after day and that causes persons to get irritated. If you instead edit, say, 30 such articles and if we assume that it takes two years on average before a new development in the legal case occurs per case, then that means a new development on average every 5 weeks.

So, you'll quite frequently have someting really new to write about. If your judgement about the person being innocent is correct, then usually the new development will prove you correct and your opponents wrong. Over time that will lead other editors to take your arguments more seriously. Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Count Iblis. You and The Magnificent Clean-Keeper and Wikid are the very few on here who have treated me with any sort of decency and respect, instead of all this hate being directed at me by editors who hold a different POV of the case. Your kindness is very much appreciated. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, the vast improvements that Zlykinskyja has already made, and can continue to make, to other crime articles on Wikipedia will be a welcome addition. Also, I think much has been learned to help expand articles such as: Stalking, Persecution and Genocide. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wikid. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That was the very first time you said a nice thing about me. How did I deserve that? I'll need some time to process it in my slowly fading brain :D The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your proposal for a more moderate remedy. It was your idea, and you got Salvio to go along. That deserves a thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, even so I'm still surprised. Now I can enjoy my very very late night dinner, actually closer to a midnight snack.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buon appetito (I believe this is Italian for bon appetite.)Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although a simple "enjoy your meal" would have done :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annoynmous (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) has been editing up to the 3RR limit at the Steven Emerson article. He solicits others to revert edits at that page, especially when he is away from his computer or at his 3RR limit. He insists on putting into the article non-RS contentious "facts" regarding Emerson, a living person. As background, Emerson brought a multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the author of those "facts" (though years later Emerson dropped it).

Efforts to dissuade Annoy from this conduct, through talk page discussion, at an edit warring report, at a wikiquette complaint, and at the RS/N have not been successful.

As this involves a combination of edit warring, vote-stacking, canvassing, and BLP/Defamation issues, and prior complaints at the respective noticeboards have not altered Annoy's conduct, I'm bringing the matter here. Annoy has been blocked 8 times in the past, primarily for edit warring.

Initial edit warring complaint

His edit-warring was first raised at WP:AN/EW 4 days ago: [30]

• 1st revert: [31]
• 2nd revert: [32]
• 3rd revert: [33]
• 4th revert: [34]

[but see admin's view below as to one of these not counting as a revert]

Diff of edit warring warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Initial vote-stacking/campaigning complaint

Annoy engaged in contemporaneous canvassing. His messages were clearly not neutral, and were obvious attempts to influence a discussion. Poster-children of what is described at wp:canvass as improper Votestacking and Campaigning:

• To I/P Collaboration WProject: "I'm engaged with [Epeefleche] on the two articles mentioned above, but this is a crisis that can't be solved by one editor. I need help from like minded souls ... I don't feel like engaging in another nasty edit war. ... I'm sounding the alarm that people need to aware of Epeefleche's edits."
• "would appeciate if while I get some shut eye you could keep an eye on this article and make sure no one reverts my edits while I'm away from my computer."
• "If you know any like minded editors who feel like I do I would ask that you please notify them."
• "If he reverts my edits again will you please try and restore them."
• "Epeefleche ... has reported me on the edit war noticeboard .... if you could please speak on my behalf"
• "I would appreciate it if you could alert anybody you feel may share the same concerns as you and I"

Results of edit warring and wikiquette complaints

Tarizabjotu declined the edit warring complaint 3 days ago, writing: "I don't see how a block will help matters here. There was no "canvassing". Annoynmous complained to someone, perhaps someone they trust (people do that all the time in content disputes), and it is up to him to ignore the complaint. Not going to block over that. The fourth revert is not a valid revert because it was consecutive with the third. They're both considered one revert. No block here."

Nsaum also raised a wikiquette complaint, which has not led to conclusive action: [37]

More recent edit warring

Annoy continued edit warring up to the 3RR limit again today:

1. First revert: [38]
2. Second revert: [39]
3. Third revert: [40]

Diff of additional edit warring warning: [41]

Diffs of additional attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42], [43], [44]

More recent canvassing

• "Epeefleche has once again reverted the version you and I agreed to. I'm at 3rr and can no longer edit. Just wanted to let you know."

John Z followed his receipt of that note in short order by reverting, but only in slight part: [45]

BLP/Defamation

Part of what is being edit-warred over is a BLP/defamation issue. Annoy insists on inputting highly critical contentious "facts" sourced to a non-RS article. The "facts" relate to both what a living person has supposedly done and said, and what others supposedly said about Emerson. WP:GRAPEVINE instructs us to: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is ... poorly sourced." But when I have tried to follow the guideline, Annoy has been insistent on putting the contentious material back in the BLP. Discussion is taking place here, but Annoy still refuses to agree that the material should be deleted from the BLP.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many battlegrounds do you need? It seems you should let the RS noticeboard, which had an post only 40 minutes ago, do its work. I do not think that this dispute should be ranging over multiple fora (forums?). At this point, anyone who wants to be is thoroughly aware of the dispute.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for that NB to be pointed here. As this involves various issues, it makes sense for it to be addressed in one place.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there more issues involved than when the RS discussion (which just had another interesting and thoughtful post) started? Personally, and subject to anything that Annoy might have to say, I am inclined to suggest a strong warning to Annoy not to post things that can be interpreted as encouraging others help out when you are at 3RR (which is not an entitlement) and let the RS discussion run its course, as it seems to be productive. But gee whiz, this has been at 3RR, WQ, RS, and now here, hope I didn't miss any. Shopping isn't nice either.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not being clear. The most recent edit warring and canvassing/vote-stacking are new events, not previously reported. The prior edit warring and canvassing is mentioned as related background, as they bear on the pattern here. The BLP/defamation issues at the same article are of course related, but at this point it seemed unproductive to spread the new complaints out over two other fora as independent complaints, and most efficient to have a central place for resolution.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again epeefleche is being misleading. First off he omits the fact that the first example he gives above was declined by the noticeboard. He once again falsely claims that one of the edits was a revert when it wasn't. It was an attempt to properly format a picture.

Contrary to his assertion I have repeatedly given my reasons for my edits on the talk page. John Z agreed with my version of the article and I simply informed him that epeefleche had once again violated the consensus. He has repeatedly refused to engage in constructive discussion and instead just engages in mad reverts in order to get the version of the article he wants. I have never defamed epeefleche and he knows it. The strongest I've gotten is to compare him to jayjg, which I apologized for, and I once referred to his editing habits as a "crusade".

I wish that instead of complaining to every noticeboard, ARB committe board he can that epeefleche would actually engage on the talk page and make the case for his edits, but he refuses to do so. Instead he looks for every way he can to get me banned so I will go away and he can get the version of the article he wants. annoynmous 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but you shouldn't even look like you are trying to solicit 3RR backup. An admin can conclude "edit warring" from that, even where there's not actual 3RR breaches. Personally, I think the noticeboards are dealing appropriate with this matter and that there is nothing to be done here. Go work it out at RS and on talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Annoy: 1) I omitted no such fact. I in fact quoted what Tarizabjotu wrote. 2) The talk pages, which I provide diffs for above, speak for themselves, and reflect tireless efforts on my part to engage in constructive discussion, without success.

@Wehwalt: With all due respect (and apologies; I should have said "hello again" at the outset), the most recent edit warring/vote-stacking/campaigning has not been raised elsewhere. As this ball of wax is all connected, and the RS/N doesn't connect the dots, this would appear to be the best central place.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again to you. I was actually hoping other admins would also weigh in, also remembering our recent run-in, but we seem to be short on personnel tonight. Maybe everyone's down in the bar?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're right here with me, and sadly I can't get any of the bleary-eyed lot to turn to their blackberries. (just joking). No worries -- this can wait for them to sober up.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you didn't omit anything, that's why you listed 4 reverts above without claifying that one wasn't a revert.

Once again I haven't votestacked or canvassed. John Z has contributed to the article and talk page and agreed with my edits and all I did was inform him of that. Why is epeefleche not called out for vitestacking for alerting several different editors to his discussion on the RS noticebaord? annoynmous 01:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) To provide greater clarity, in addition to the above admin's statement, I've now added an italicized parenthetical at mention of the revertreverts above, to bring the reader's attention to the admin's view there as well. 2) As to your vote-stacking and canvassing, the diffs speak for themselves. 3) As to my alerting you and other editors to our RS/N discussion, the "alerts" were certainly neutral. Furthermore, I not only alerted you as an involved editor, but also those who had commented at the previous RS/N discussions on whether FAIR is an RS, as was quite clear in those alerts, as to John Z here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again epeefleche is being delibertely deceptive. It's the 1st revert that is falsely indentified, not the 4th. I don't know whether he changed the order from the original page or not, but the fact matter is that the admin declined the block because they agreed the edit was not a revert.

Fine, if you can alert people so can I. John Z has contributed to the article and talk page and I left a neutral message on his talk page on how you went against the consensus. annoynmous 02:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that when epeefleche originally posted this on the noticeboard he listed 5 reverts. The problem was that 4 of the edits he listed weren't made by me. It wasn't until stellarkid pointed this out to him that he admitted he made a mistake and changed it. annoynmous 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know Epeefleche is quite rich in complaining about canvassing and votestacking. Here is a message he left on Jimbo wales page:

Defamation?
Hi Jimbo. I know this is a hot button for you. An editor is inserting highly critical and contentious material into a BLP, from a non-RS (I believe) article.

The subject of the BLP has already brought a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the article author over his alleged defamation of the subject in his writing. He dropped the suit after a number of years. But now an editor is insisting on putting contentious language from an article by the author into the BLP. I think per various guidelines it should be deleted immediately. The editor edit-wars with me whenever I seek to delete it (or another, well-intentioned editor puts it back in with a "citation needed" notation).

I raised the issue at BLPN, but so far without effect. The matter is discussed here. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything you wrote on this that I disagree with at all. The source is not good enough.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC) "

To my knowledge Jimbo was never involved in this dispute until now. This seems to me like the definition of canvassing, sending a message to a random editor not connected to the dispute who just happens to be the owner of wikipedia. How is that fair? annoynmous 03:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, there's no way in hell that Jimbo can be considered to be a "random editor". Whether one believes that he should be or not, it is clear that Jimbo is the holder of significant power and authority on Wikipedia, and bringing disputes to him in the hope that he will intervene is not in any way unusual. It probably shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is, and to pretend that going to Wales is "canvassing" is ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So people aren't allowed to canvass with the exception of Jimbo? Is that in the guidelines somewhere? I gotta say this whole dispute, like most disputes on wikipedia, has left me in a depressed state. I'm regretting getting involved at all. annoynmous 04:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, going to Jimbo is not "canvassing", because the intent is not to get an editor involved in the dispute as it stands, but to short-circuit the dispute entirely by going to the top. I have no idea if that's in any rule, but it's an accurate description of the system as it functions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo would be the correct essay to refer to. You are correct, contacting Jimbo is trying to short-circuit the discussion and is largely frowned upon. There are only specific instances where it is appropriate to contact Jimbo, usually in terms of something that he would actually be involved in. Silverseren^C 05:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As the essay that Silverseren directs us to says: "Furthermore, when Jimbo does respond he rarely takes sides, unless it is a completely egregious and unescapably important issue that must be responded to."

Which I gather it is. Given Jimbo's comments on his talk page and at the RS/N discussion, and his deletion of offending material at the article itself.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and you then interpreted those comments to give you permission to delete FAIR from wikipedia altogether which he never gave you permission to do. Also I must say it's extremely hypocritical to complain about my supposed canvassing when you left a message on the talk page of an editor who had nothing to do with the dispute. Was the case really so dire that only Jimbo could solve it? annoynmous 08:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to note that Jimbo actually did a revert on the article with an edit summary: [46] Stellarkid (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @Annoy: Your statement as to me deleting FAIR from Wikipedia altogether is incorrect. As I've discussed at the RS/N.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after epeefleche contacted him. annoynmous 05:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What isn't really clear to me is why this issue is having an effect on article content. BLP works on a 'do no harm' basis and the policy compliance of the material from Sugg's article hasn't been established. Perhaps it will be shown to be policy compliant at some point or there will be alternative sources but in the meantime surely BLP requires that the material be excluded from the article. This seems like a no brainer to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Sean.hoyland, BLP's mantra of "do no harm" and "when in doubt" apply here, and it should be excluded from the article until (and if) sources surface that are policy compliant. Furthermore as the editor who filed the Wikietiquette report[47], I think a lot of hard feelings and "drama" could have been avoided had something been done there. It is NEVER proper to use a Wikiproject talk page to "warn" other editors about someone, or air their "dirty laundry"; and the fact that the discussion there continued despite a number of other editors joining in saying it was an improper forum, only helped to fan the flames and cause this dispute to spread to multiple locations. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 07:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How was the inclusion of Suggs article causing harm. It was stated as his opinion, nothing more. Recently epeefleceh interpreted the RS noticeboard talkpage as a liscense to remove FAIR from every article on wikipedia. annoynmous 07:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Help needed; Annoy reverting deletion at the Emerson article. I'm at a complete loss. Now, despite Jimbo's very clear statement at the RS/N, Annoy has reverted deletions of mention of Sugg in the Emerson article. We really need an admin to step up to the plate here and address this; I can't seem to get through to Annoy, and apparently now neither can Jimbo.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is complete bunk. Jimbo never gave epeefleche permission to remove Sugg altogether. All he said is that the parts that don't have any cititation should be removed. Epeefleche inferred a lot more from Jimbo's statement than he should have. He thought it gave him permission to remove FAIR from over 30 articles. Several editors on RS board have said that epeefleche was wrong in this conclusion. annoynmous 11:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My above comment relates to Annoy's revert at the Emerson article. That was in direct contravention to Jimbo's comment. Commenting on whether we should use FAIR/Sugg at the Emerson article, Jimbo said: "Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. As was noted up above, he isn't Thomas Friedman or anything - so his scathing criticism isn't even arguably noteworthy in and of itself...Jimbo Wales"--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Have to second Epeefleche here. This gets frustrating. I don't want to appear overly critical but it seems like a hardened case of "I can't hear you". Can we get an admin here to help? Stellarkid (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amused that Stellarkid is trying to represent himself as a disinterested party when he's been epeefleches partner in a lot of the antics on this page. An I must say it's also rich to talk about frustration, because I'm a mountain of it at this point. All I did was lightly tweak an article I thought was biased and epeefleche and stellarkid acted like I'd committed some crime against nature. annoynmous 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not take it as the conclusion of the RSN discussion that the FAIR source cannot be used. Although it was initially used inappropriately to source a great number of controversial factual statements, for every one of which better sources have now been substituted , it can still be used to give the opinion of the author. Removing it from this article is unnecessary, and legal proceedings being taken elsewhere are irrelevant--even if it is eventually held that Sugg libeled the subject, that very fact will be relevant. Removing it from other articles is POINTYy. It has been challenged at RSN several times in different contexts, and always upheld as a usable source for opinion, ebven in BLPs. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've now reflected Jimbo's comment 4 paragraphs above, w/regard to whether we should use the FAIR/Sugg article. His opinion that we should not, under the circumstances, is clear.

As far as deletions of FAIR at other Wikipedia articles is concerned, as I said at the RS/N, the only two situations where it can't be used as a general matter are: 1) as an RS for fact; and 2) where it introduces contentious material to a BLP. If it is pure opinion, generally that is fine. For example, where FAIR says: "We didn't like his book." But where it is both opinion and one of the above, it is not, for reasons I imagine are obvious. So, it's not OK to reflect FAIR saying "Our opinion is that Person X's racism is bad," or "Our opinion is that the fact that Y did such-and-such is bad" -- in the absence of RS support for the fact that Person X is racist, or the fact that Y did such-and-such. The wp policies supporting such deletions are discussed in further detail at the RS/N.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well who gave you personal permission to determine that in each of those instances that those articles were doing such things. That's a matter to take up on the talk pages of each individual article.

Also Jimbo's words were in the context of Emersons lawsuit. I pointed out that his reasoning was wrong in this sense because the lawsuit was dropped. It should also be said that when Jimbo personally edited the article he didn't remove Sugg. You would think that if he was so sure Sugg wasn't a RS that he would have done that. annoynmous 09:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Inasmuch as the initial RS/N regarding use of the FAIR/Sugg article in the Emerson article appears to now have been addressed, I've sought to close that discussion. And opened up a separate RS/N discussion regarding Annoy's reverts of my deletions of FAIR contentious BLP edits and statements of fact.here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Moved from WP:AN

Ahmed shahi (talk · contribs) is accusing me of "spreading racism" ([48]), only because I have removed a very doublful source he is using: "Afghanpedia", a project of the website Sabawoon.com, a Pashto language newspaper with well-known affinities toward Pashtun nationalism and even the Taliban-movement. It does not mention its authors, contradicts leading scholarly encyclopedias, and promotes without any doubt Pashtun nationalist propaganda, for example the claim that "Pashtuns are 65% of Afghanistan", or that the Western forces that are fighting the Taliban and al-Kaida are "enemies of Afghans" and "insult Pashtuns" (see for example here or here). By no means is that website a reliable source. And because I have removed that source and instead used word-to-word quotes from the reliable Encyclopaedia of Islam, he is calling me a "racist". At the same time, User:Ahmad shahi is deleting well-referenced information and scholarly sources (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, etc. - see here). I had already reported him to an admin (User:Dbachmann; see respective discussion), but nothing happened. He is rejecting scholarly references, he does not know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources, he is extremely offensive and insults others (see above), and he has a clear ethnocentric agenda. As one can see in this comment ("... I don't understand what kind of an Afghan are you to be hating your own nation so much, removing Afghan history templates from articles that are part of Afghanistan's history. You hate anything and everything that is from Afghanistan, prepared by Afghans, or has the name Afghan in it ..."), he thinks that Wikipedia is some kind of a platform where everybody has to defend national interests. Tajik (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The only comment I will make here is that I have fully protected Afghanistan while the edit warring is taking place (I've protected it for 1 month). I do not know the subject, so I have protected the article as it stood when I saw the RFPP request. I also suggested that Ahmed shahi (who created the RFPP request) report his problems with Tajik at AN - I have no thoughts on which editor is in the wrong here (if Tajik had made the report at RFPP, I would have referred him here) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction: Tajik placed the request at RFPP, but Ahmed shahi placed a comment there, which I responded to. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am using well-known scholarly references, most of all Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI) and Encyclopaedia Iranica (EIr). EIr has free access, EI is available at universities and can be checked by others who are also studying oriental studies or Iranistics ate a university. User:Ahmed shahi, on the other hand, neither has access to the encyclopedia (hence I assume he is not at a university and has limited to no qualification in this field), is actively removing scholarly sources, googles irrelevant books from the 19th century to "source" his claims, and uses very doubtful websites (www.sabawoon.com) which - by no means - can be considered reliable sources. He is aggressive, insults others, and has a very specific ethnocentric agenda. Even when confronted with quotes from notable scholars, such as Clifford Edmund Bosworth, Louis Dupree, Georg Morgenstierne, etc, he either refuses to accept the facts or he falsifies the quotes in the article. That is very disturbing. Besides that, he invents expressions that are unknown to scholars, such as "last Afghan Empire", which is his own WP:OR and only supported by his unrealiable "Afghanpedia". It does not appear in any reliable encyclopedia or scholarly publication. Leaving that aside, the main reason why I reported him was his insult against me. Calling me "racist" only because I have removed his unrealiable and doubtful sources is clearly against Wikipedia rules. Tajik (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be better at the Reliable sources noticeboard? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tajik appears to have a long history of getting in trouble.[49] He just talks about race and ethnicity which is what most prejudice people do, and often he criticizes people of other ethnic groups. He proudly claims being from Afghanistan on his user page but goes around defaming Afghanistan, its people and its history. His edits which appear to be all about race indicate that he is an extreme Persian-ethnocentric POV pusher. Over and over he claims that Iranian and Islamic sources are champions while any other sources are garbage and should be removed or tossed out of the articles. I believe he is very disruptive and should be blocked because he is not doing any good to Wikipedia. He secretly invites other Persian-ethnocentric editors (User:Inuit18, User:Ariana310, and User:Alefbe) to help him with edit-war so that he doesn't violate his one revert per page per week.[50].Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, nothing from the Encyclopaedia of Islam that he cites in articles can be verified.Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a) I reported User:Ahmed shahi, because he called me "racist". That is clearly against the rules of Wikipedia.

b) Everything in the Encyclopaedia of Islam can be checked. Anyone who is registered at a university or is working at a university has access to it. Ahmed shahi can't do it, because he is not working at a university, because he is not registered at a university, because he has no clue of history. To keep it short: he does not even have the slightest qualification or the most basic requirement to write an encyclopedic article about Afghanistan. Wikipedia is not supposed to favor the POV of unqualified people over those of real experts. I am quoting real experts, while Ahmed shahi is deleting academic quotes and instead promoted nonsense based on unrealible websites.

c) The Encyclopaedia of Islam is not an "Islamic source", as this user claims, but is an English language encyclopedia especially designed for academic studies in the West. The Encyclopaedia Iranica is a major project of the Columbia University. Again, his comments only prove that he neither has any knowledge of scientific historical research, nor does he have any knowledge of what sources to be used.

d) Except for doubtful and unreliable websites, Ahmed shahi is not able to present one single scholarly and academic source to support his views. That's because he is a POV pusher who is acting against the consensus among REAL experts.

Tajik (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call anyone a "racist", Tajik (the big trouble maker [51]) keeps removing the sourced phrase "Afghanistan, meaning land of the Afghans" from the intro of Afghanistan without explaining why. Maybe he thinks Afghanistan should be land of the Tajiks and not the Afghans. Tajik proudly claims on his user page that he is from Afghanistan but goes around defaming Afghanistan, its history and its people. So I just reverted his vandalism.

Afghanistan is only one territory, and he writes "The territories now comprising Afghanistan". That proves that Tajik doesn't know what he's talking about. The information I used as a reference for the "last Afghan Empire" from Afghanpedia is backed by 100s of other sources, including Encyclopedia Iranica and all other sources that he praises.[52] He falsely changes "last Afghan Empire" to "first Afghan Empire". I ask him right now to show us any (even one single source) that says the Durrani Empire was the "first Afghan Empire" as being asserted by Tajik in the article. I know for a fact he cannot come up with any because there is no source that would say such a lie. There were Afghan kingdoms in the past, known as Lodi dynasty, Suri dynasty, and even the Khilji dynasty were treated as an Afghan kingdom. Another was the Afghan Hotaki dynasty just before the Durrani Afghan kingdom.

The information from Encyclopaedia of Islam cannot be verified so he uses this as a source to back up his POVs in articles. If anyone tries to question it then too bad there is no way to verify it. -Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd have to agree with Tajik on this. Judging from the language, ignorance of the emphasis of verifiability, lack of civility, and deliberate avoidance of Wikipedia's RS policy, it only goes to show that Ahmed Shahi's reliability as an editor is seriously in doubt. And to call certain editors names and spreading baseless accusations against them because they are against his unilateral edits also run afoul on NPA. Encyclopaedia of Islam's data 'cannot be verified'? Look who's talking. Seriously, you'll need much better arguments to prove your case, and the way it's looking, you refuse to admit you were wrong. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how my name came up in this issue and why User:Ahmed shahi is accusing me of assisting User:Tajik in pushing - what he calls as - the ethnocentric POVs. I have tried to be neutral in the dispute between User:Tajik and User:Ahmed shahi. If I have reverted User:Ahmed shahi's edits which were un-sourced, or used unreliable sources, or conflicted scholarly sources such as Encylcopaedia Britannica and Encylcopaedia of Islam, I have also reverted some of User:Tajik's edits which seemed not totally accurate. So User:Ahmed shahi's accusation of me "assisting" User:Tajik is baseless. The fact that we (me and User:Tajik) refer to scholarly and reliable sources, and we end up reaching to an agreement without any long disputes, does not prove User:Ahmed shahi's contrary accusation.

In this current dispute, I would have to agree that User:Ahmed shahi uses unreliable and unscholarly sources to put forward his points such as "www.sabawoon.com" or other nonacademic websites. When he is provided with a reliable source, he calls it Original Research and ignores its validity. He seems not to have fully read the Wikipedia:No original research and has a false definition of what an Original Research is. Ariana (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that Ahmed shahi is using sources that don't meet our criteria, eg sabawoon.com and even worse its afghanpedia. What's odd is that he claims that there are many other sources - so why not use a reliable one? Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Eaglestorm. You support Tajik for saying things like this in the edit summaries that do nothing but provoke ethnic Pashtuns? Not only that, Tajik has called me Pashtun-ethnocentric or Pashtun ultra-nationalist, and etc, many times in the last few of days, and he continues to call me this after I had told him, I'm not ethnocentric and I don't like being called this

Tajik said he "used word-to-word quotes from the reliable Encyclopaedia of Islam" [53], a source which he claims to have with him. I want him or anyone else to post the quote from the Encyclopedia of Islam here so we can see if he is telling the truth or lying to us. It should say exactly as this '"The political history of Afghanistan begins in the 18th century with the rise of Pashtun tribes (known as Afghans in Persian), when in 1709 the Hotaki dynasty established its rule in Kandahar and, more specifically, when Ahmad Shah Durrani created the Durrani Empire in 1747 - the first Afghan Empire and the forerunner of modern Afghanistan." I assure you these lines (which were written by User:Tajik the other day) are no where found in the Encyclopedia of Islam.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller. I have no idea what you and Ariana310 are arguing about. I never claimed Sabawoon.com to be a reliable source. I said the information found about the "last Afghan Empire" in that site is accurate, it's the same as what you find else where in other source. My argument is that there were a number of Afghan kingdoms or empires in the past, such as the Lodi dynasty (1451-1526), the Suri dynasty (1540–1556), the Hotaki dynasty (1709–1738) and others, so how can you write in the article that the Durrani (1747-1826) was the "first Afghan Empire" (this is User:Tajik's POV) You guys don't have a clue about Afghanistan's history and you leave comments telling others who is right and who is wrong. I find this very funny.Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to post the same quotes until you accept them?!

• "... The year 1160/1747 marks the definitive appearance of an Afghan political entity independent of both the Safavid and Mughal empires. ..." - D. Balland (2010). "AFGHANISTAN x. Political History". Encyclopaedia Iranica, online ed., Columbia University.
• "... The country now known as Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century, when the supremacy of the Afghān race became assured: previously various districts bore distinct appellations, but the country was not a definite political unit, and its component parts were not bound together by any identity of race or language. The earlier meaning of the word was simply “the land of the Afghāns ”, a limited territory which did not include many parts of the present state but did comprise large districts now either independent or within the boundary of Pakistan. ..." - M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Introduction". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV
• "... The territories now known as Afghānistān were occupied by Iranian tribes during the Aryan migrations in the second and first millenia B.C., incorporated in the Achaemenid empire by Cyrus, and after the conquests of Alexander (...) disputed between the Greco-Bactrians and the Parthians (...) In the first century B.C. th ere was a fresh influx of Iranian tribesmen under the leadership of the Kushān tribe of the Yueh-Chi. ..." - M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Pre-Islamic history". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV
• "... The territories that form modern Afghānistān belonged in the first thousand years of Islamic history to different provinces, and although these neighbouring provinces, often shared common vicissitudes, they did not at any time form a separate entity. Nor did the Afghāns form a state of their own until the days of Mīr Ways, and more especially Aḥmad Shāh Durrānī. ..." - M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Mongol period to the rise of the Afghan national state". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV

Tajik (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tajik has failed to show "the first Afghan Empire" being mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Islam. All of the information that Tajik is quoting is available in 100s of books at google books search, or at other online encyclopedias such as Britannica, as well as at US government sites, which we can verify ourselves by a few mouse clicks, and, I have no problem with it. Everybody knows that the modern state of Afghanistan was formed in 1747 by Ahmad Shah Durrani.

However, I disagree with where User:Tajik wrote in the Afghanistan introduction that the Durrani was the "first Afghan Empire", that is Tajik's POV only. He wants us to forget about the Afghan Lodi dynasty, Afghan Suri dynasty, Afghan Hotaki dynasty and also Turko-Afghan Khilji dynasty. These were powerful Afghan kingdoms that ruled Delhi Sultanate of India and the Persian Empire.

User: Tajik edits the Afghanistan articles with controversy, like someone is trying to alter, forge, and corrupt it, defame the nation, it's people and culture, and so on. He removes the Afghanistan history template from the Ghurid Dynasty and leaves a bizaare comment in the edit summary "a) Afghanistan did not exist at that time and b) the Ghurids are not exclusive property of Afghanistan c) the political and cultural effect on India was much greater", even when he knows perfectly well that the kingdom was centered or based inside today's Afghanistan. This is what I'm complaining about User: Tajik.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that here it doesn't matter if the material at Sabawon.com is accurate or not, Sabawon.com can't be used as a source. If it's accurate, find a source that meets our criteria at WP:RS. You need to understand how we work -- we require reliable and verifible sources, and we expect sometimes that these will be in conflict and accept that - in other words, 'truth' isn't our goal, and although I know little about Afghanistan I and others know quite a bit about what we look for in sources. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're a little confused, and I know you're unfamiliar with Afghanistan's history. Again, the Sabawoon site is not the issue here. As for me, I'm an expert on the history of Afghanistan.Ahmed shahi (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"As for me, I'm an expert on the history of Afghanistan" - I'm afraid that is irrelevant unless you can cite your contributions with footnotes or references to reliable third party sources. That is how Wikipedia works, it isn't about what you know but what you can cite. SGGH ^ping! 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was only directed to Dougweller, not to others.Ahmed shahi (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, this is a community discussion, so any comments can be replied to by anyone. As SGGH says, whether you are an expert or not is irrelevant. The question isn't whether you have expert knowledge - it is whether you can cite correctly according to WP:CITE. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ahmed shahi: the following sentence is totally clear:

• "... The territories that form modern Afghānistān belonged in the first thousand years of Islamic history to different provinces, and although these neighbouring provinces, often shared common vicissitudes, they did not at any time form a separate entity. Nor did the Afghāns form a state of their own until the days of Mīr Ways, and more especially Aḥmad Shāh Durrānī. ..." (M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Mongol period to the rise of the Afghan national state". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV)

The Durrani Empire - also know as the "Afghan Empire" - was the first empire that was defined as "Afghan" (which is just the Persian word for Pashtuns). It was founded by Afghans, it was backed by Afghans, and its identity was Afghan. No other empire before fulfilled these requirements: the dynasty of Sher Shah Suri was not Afghan in identity, was not Afghan in language, and was not backed by Afghans. The same goes to the Lodi dynasty that, like all the previous Sultanates of Delhi, was based on a strong Turkic military and a Persian-Islamic cultural and administrative core. The Durrani Empire was totally different: it was based on a national movement within the Pashtun tribes that had started during the short-lived reign of the Hotaki. The first king of the dynasty, Ahmad Shah, was directly elected by tribal members. And the natioanl identity of the dynasty (and empire) was "Afghan": Afghans ruled, Afghans administered, Afghans from various tribes were sent as governors to conquered regions, Afghans were relocated to Non-Afghan regions (i.e. Balkh, Herat, etc.), and Afghans enjoyed the favor of the king. The Afghan national state (see quote above) begins with the Hotaki and Durranis. The Durrani Empire was the first Afghan Empire. There was no "Afghan Empire" before it, and strictly speaking, there was no "Afghan Empire" after it. Maybe the word "Empire" is a misnomer. Tajik (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tajik, you said that you "used word-to-word quotes from the reliable Encyclopaedia of Islam" [54] so where is the mention of "the first Afghan Empire"? As I said previosuly, this is just your POV and using the unverifiable source to back it up.

You're trying to confuse the situation. The "state" of Afghanistan doesn't have to be ruled or run by ethnic Afghans, in this case Pashtuns, in order to be called "Afghanistan" or the "Afghan Empire". Large parts of Afghanistan were made up of Punjabi people (of Punjab region), Baloch people (of Balochistan), Sindhi people (of Sindh), and Persian people (of north-eastern Iran). The ruling dynasty was Pashtun Sadozais.

The Lodi dynasty, Suri dynasty, Hotaki dynasty, including the Khilji dynasty were all "Afghan kingdoms" or "Afghan empires" in the same way, depending on how one looks at it. They had a territory that was governed by them, it doesn't matter who the inhabitants of their territory were because we're dealing only with kingdoms or empires. In modern times we use "administrations" like the Karzai administration, the Obama administration, and so on.

Therefore, your are wrong by saying that the Durrani dynasty was the "first Afghan Empire", and you failed to provide a source which mentions that. Since you don't trust Sabawoon or Afghanpedia's article on the "last Afghan Empire" how about Encyclopædia Britannica's article on the "last Afghan Empire"? Is Britannica also unreliable source? You can avoid all this nonsense by just saying that the Durrani Empire became today's state of Afghanistan. This is the best way to describe Afghanistan, but you like to make things controversial and that creates edit-wars. And, you should stop removing the sourced phrase "Afghanistan meaning land of the Afghans" from the intro because that is very important for readers to know.

TO admininstrators, User:Tajik shouldn't be trusted because he lies and purposly misquotes information. He stated all the way at the top that "Sabawoon.com is a Pashto language newspaper with well-known affinities toward Pashtun nationalism and even the Taliban-movement. It does not mention its authors, contradicts leading scholarly encyclopedias, and promotes without any doubt Pashtun nationalist propaganda, for example the claim that "Pashtuns are 65% of Afghanistan"." Well, all this is User:Tajik's lies because at least he should've said Sabawoon.com is in both English and Pashto language, and, he wants to make all Pashtun people as Taliban supporters. The site actually states "More than sixty five percent of the population speaks Pashto" but Tajik purposly misinterpreted this. There is a big difference between someone who can speak Pashto language and someone who is ethnic Pashtun. Just a reminder that Pashto is one of the official language of Afghanistan and why would that line surprise anyone? Tajik has done this in other discussions and is continuing to trick your minds here with his words. He messeged User:Inuit18, Ariana310, and User:Alefbe lying to them that I was accusing them of POV pushing in here, in this discussion, [55], [56], [57] but if you scroll up no where did I call them that. This is probably why he has so many blocks [58] but he still continues to misbehave and disrupt the project, manupilating the situation, and etc.Ahmed shahi (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming the Lodis, Suris or the Turkish Khaljis as "Afghan Empires" (= Pashtuns) is your own POV and is not supported by ANY - I repeat: ANY - serious source. And why doesn't it surprise me that you are once again misquoting a source in order to present it as "authentic". Your unreliable "Afghanpedia" which you consider superior to standard academic works actually says:

• "... More than sixty five percent of the population speaks Pashto, the language of the Pashtoons, while the rest of the population speaks Dari,{the language of the Tajiks, Hazaras, Chahar Aimaks, and Kizilbash peoples and other Indo-European languages, spoken by smaller groups, include Western Dardic (Nuristani or Kafiri)}, Baluchi, and a number of Indic and Pamiri languages spoken principally in isolated valleys in the northeast, Turkic languages, a subfamily of the Altaic languages, are spoken by the Uzbek and Turkmen peoples, the most recent settlers, who are related to peoples from the steppes of Central Asia. ..."

This unreliable website claims that Pashto is the dominant language of the country, spoken by 65%, and that the rest of the population is devided among Persian, Turkic, and speakers or other languages. That is totally POV and Pashtun nationalism at its worst. And that is exactly why you are so much relying on that laughable website: because it supports your Pashtun nationalistic nonsense. And the Durrani Empire was the FIRST Afghan Empire, not the "last one" (keeping in mind that Afghans did not have any empires at all except for a short period when Ahmad Shah Durrani greatly expanded his kingdom). See:

• Victoria Schofield, Afghan frontier: feuding and fighting in Central Asia, Tauris I B, 1st ed., 2003. ISBN 1860648959, p. 34: "... [Ahmad Shah] Durrani died at the age of fifty in 1773, leaving his favourite son, Timur Shah, to rule the first Afghan empire ..."
• Nancy Hatch Dupree, in AARP (art and archaeology research papers), vol. 7-12, 1975, p. 15: "... With the establishment of the first Afghan Empire by Ahmad Shah Durrani in 1747 ..."

It should not be forgotten that you have insulted another user only because that user (me) removed your unrealiable sources. Tajik (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From your arguments I see that you have very limited knowledge about the Afghan history, and, I didn’t consider Afghanpedia as superior so you are falsely accusing me. You are some what attacking Pashtuns on a wider scale. You're placing Persian propaganda in Afghanistan related articles ([59]) and targeting Pashtun editors, often you call me and others a Pashtun-ethnocentric, which literally means a "racist Pashtun". What's strange is that I haven't told anyone my ethnicity or my nationality. I have told you nicely that I'm not ethnocentric and I don't like being called this but you continue to insult or attack me. You stated to your other Tajik friend "Ahmed shahi is a waste of time..." Why do you feel insulted when I inform administrators about you?

The Durrani dynasty was not the first Afghan Empire, it became the last Afghan Empire according to Encyclopædia Britannica (last Afghan Empire) from which the modern state of Afghanistan was born. If you click on the contributors in Britannica you'll see that among all those professors, Nancy Hatch Dupree is also listed there. Some book writers may mistakenly think it was the first because perhaps they're not aware of the Afghan rulers of India during the Delhi Sultanate.

You did a quick name (first Afghan Empire) search in google book site and presented to us a mention of “first Afghan empire” in the long writings of a 2003 book about "Central Asia". The book writer (Victoria Schofield) is only dealing with Central Asian kingdoms, and perhaps she is unaware of the "first Afghan Empire" of South Asia. Most westerners don’t know anything about the powerful Afghan rulers from India. There is even a book named "The first Afghan empire in India", 1451-1526 A. D, by Awadh Bihari Pandey (1956). Click on the articles of Lodi, Suri, Hotaki and Khilji to see that they were Afghans. You brought book references in this discussion but in the Talk:Ghurid Dynasty discussions you have been preaching that references from books are second class.

Your comment about Afghanpedia’s languages information is irrelevant, and no where in Wikipedia did I use that information. I want to remind you anyway that Pashto is the official language of Afghanistan and it makes perfect sense that 65% of the total population speaks it. Not only Pashtuns speak Pashto but also Baloch, Nuristanis, and many Tajiks, Hazaras, Aimaks, and others are very fluent in Pashto even that it’s not their mother language.

I joined Wikipedia to learn and share my knowledge. I didn't come to spread ethnocentrism or political propaganda as what you're doing. All your edits are with ethnocentric POVs, in which you are promoting Tajik-Persian history and culture while defaming Pashtun-Afghan culture and history. You proudly claim on your page to be from Afghanistan but your views are very anti-Afghanistan, I find that very strange.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed I think your first sentences of your last post sums up all the problems you have been having. Wikipedia is the wrong place for you to share your knowledge here that is called OR. At Wikipedia we are here to share knowledge that has already been published in other wiki-reliable sources if you can not find it in a wiki-acceptable source you can not use it no matter now correct and truthfull it is. Yes sometimes it put articles on non-english topice at a servere disadvantage but they are the rule we must live by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A disruptive user, Craigcobbcreativitypractitioner (who apparently is Craig Cobb) has been posting legal threats on other users' talk pages. For example, see [this diff], which includes the quote

I do understand how you people do not desire any mentions whatsoever of the tenured Prof Macdonald on my page, and that hateful, controlling "choke point" fact against NawlinWiki and Wikipedia will be in any future litigation in event of my assassination by ARA as well.

This is a deeply paranoid, deluded man who believes he will be targeted by an imminent assassination and is threatening to have Wikipedia sued. He is also threatening to "expose" various Wikipedia editors by making Podblanc videos. I believe speedy intervention of some sort is necessary. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the account for the legal threat. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Went to block, but was beaten to it. Fairly textbook application of WP:NLT really. The account could possibly have been blocked per WP:REALNAME, as well, at least until we confirmed whether it was the real Craig Cobb. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

That would have been a nonsensical use of a username block. It would say "Please change your username before you resume making legal threats". NLT was the correct reason to block. rspεεr (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are complainants tagging the Scarlett Johansson article that are not willing to make actionable suggestions to the editor (not me, I reviewed it a for GA Sweeps 9 months ago). Instead they insist on putting the {{peacock}} tag on the article and a WP:SOCK is now throwing around WP:MPOV claims. I have stated on the talk page why this is a very bad time to be defacing the article with pejorative tags. Ms. Johansson's page is highly visible with a regular audience of 8-10K viewers per day and a ramp up in her audience is visible (http://stats.grok.se/en/201004/Scarlett_Johansson ) as the publicity for Iron Man 2, which opens on Friday, impacts her viewership. There is now a tag team of editors unwilling to make any actionable suggestions but who insist on tagging the article. I am not sure if reverting a WP:SOCK could get me a WP:3RR violation, so I am here. I have requested either a list of actionable changes so that the willing and able editor can respond either through WP:PR or an individual WP:GAR or a clear statement at a community WP:GAR to gather collective feedback. Instead, the page was just retagged at a time when her viewership is about to bound upwards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud Tony's honesty in admitting that high readership of a page is a reason not to have a tag. Some editors are less than honest and dream up of wikilawyering reasons. The more honesty we have in Wikipedia, the better. A barnstar for you, Tony. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went to remove the tag, but I see it's gone already. I'll help to keep an eye on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tag. I see sentences in the article that could stand some rewording, but nothing that can't be addressed through the regular editing process and/or talkpage discussion. I don't think the problems rise to the level of needing the prominent "peacock" tag at the top of the article, and given that this is a prominent BLP page, I am concerned that new readers might incorrectly think the allegation of "peacocking" is directed at the article subject herself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that a high ranking Wikipedia user and a lawyer would have such fears. If one has those fears, just make a new version of a tag or an alternate tag! Some people hate tags because they think it looks "ugly". Tags encourage people to improve articles. It gets ordinary readers to edit and improve, otherwise edits are often just made by the "vandal fighters". Wikipedia is not a idol to be worshipped and not edited. Wikipedia should be like a daily driver type car. Use it, edit it, improve it. Not a museum piece that is untouched. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYBrad, My point exactly. Thank you.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that there was a WP:BLP dimension to maintenance tagging? SGGH ^ping! 07:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags are not supposed to just be slapped on in a "drive-by" fashion- if somebody feels it's justified, they should give a clear rationale for it on the talk page with examples of things they think are problematic. Also, the article is a GA and tagging it implies that it doesn't meet the GA criteria so if the issue is that serious, it should be taken to a GAR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

current tag

a possible, alternative tag (not a replacement tag) to be added to Wikipedia's repetoire of tags (not necessarily to Scarlet's article)

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand the idea that tags shouldn't be added to "good" articles because they might loose their GA or FAC rating - as if the tag draws attention to a flaw that the users who wrote the article want to hide from GAR or FAR (but of course I don't actually think that.) Rather get it fixed when a tag flags it up than let it go unnoticed, and to be honest most GAs or FAs never, ever need them. In terms of BLP, I think that's silly. Tags say things like "the article is..." or "this article has been nominated". To stretch it to the person or topics a bit too tenuous for 99% of readers IMO. In the time it takes to discuss this, the issue has probably gone from the article. I agree, however, that "drive by tagging" as User:HJ Mitchell delightfully put it, is a bit unhelpful (though we've all done it.) SGGH ^ping! 16:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never have, and I very likely never will, for several reasons, not least of which is that they're generally unhelpful and disfiguring. The proper course of action is always to raise any issues on the talk page and, if the article is a GA or an FA, to initiate a review at the appropriate place if the concerns are not addressed. Best of all, of course, is just to fix the article. Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is entirely dependent on one's workflow. Drive-by tagging and then fixing articles on the next pass works fine for me and I would assume that it works fine for others. The amount of abuse that editors who work like this receive is well beyond the minor level of annoyance experienced by Wikipedia's tagophobes. {{peacock}} (which can be very subjective) is a tricky one; most cleanup tags are self-evident and do not require discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – minor mistake, followed by an (understandable) panic-mode reaction. No issue. Amalthea 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MC10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sometime today, near the morning UTC, MC10 (talk · contribs) decided to replace all instances of {{subst}} with <includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>.

This broke hundreds of the user warning templates.

I, along with a few admins, mainly Tim Song, managed to clean up this mess... At least to my knowledge. I may have missed a couple. To this end, I request, along with the below, to test every twinkle enabled user warning message on Example (talk · contribs)'s user talk page.

What do I want this thread to do? I would personally like an edit filter to prevent the above from ever happening again, or a note to never replace {{subst}} with what was noted above. If anything, I would like an admin to at least warn MC10 to not do this again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been notified.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bit overeager. From the few I checked, only {{Welcome-anon}} was actually broken, since the use of safesubst broke the substitution check here and always displayed the error message. The changes to {{Uw-create1}} and all others I spot-checked were perfectly good, and a clear improvement.
I for one am happy that MC10 went through the uw- templates and made that change, I've made the same change to a couple dozen templates myself last week. So no, we need not prevent usage of safesubst, and not really need to test all messages since the warning templates will all have survived the change unless other mistakes were made, and as far as I can tell only the one welcome template was touched.
Amalthea 09:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, what does safesubst actually do? SGGH ^ping! 10:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Safesubst works the same as subst during substitution, but is simply ignored during transclusion. Previously, many templates (e.g. almost all user warning templates) that were supposed to be transcludable and (cleanly) substitutable had to be called with an additional parameter like {{subst:Foo|subst=subst:}} to get rid of parser function cruft. With safesubst, that parameter can be omitted, and it just works. See WT:WikiProject Template#Safesubst or meta:Help:Safesubst for more.
That doesn't mean that all previous uses of subst should now be replaced with safesubst, or that all templates should now be built to allow both. But for most meta templates and talk page templates it's very useful.
Amalthea 11:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't we just go through this the other day? (The moral of the story is to propose or announce your intention to make mass changes before carrying them out) –xeno^talk 13:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that would have helped here: The intended change of the uw-* templates had merit and would have gotten support, and they were executed without issue. They simply coincided with the same change to one welcome template where it broke some special coding. It wasn't a "mass breakage", only a subsequent mass rollback of all changes guilty by association.
    It never hurts to discuss stuff, and one could have expected it in this case since MC10 was a burnt child, having made similar changes to that range of templates which actually broke functionality one year ago (contribs, talk). Nonetheless, I wouldn't have in this case – or rather, I haven't, as I said I've made a couple dozen of those changes myself. Amalthea 15:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I just applied the same change that {{welcome}} used. {{Welcome-anon}} was the only template broken, and that was by mistake; anyways, all of the uw- templates worked and were not broken. By this discussion, a bot request had already been filed for the change to be made. The rollback was unnecessary as only one template broke. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, well, it even was discussed then. To sum up, it was a minor mistake, followed by an (understandable) panic-mode reaction. Once the bot gets full approval it can restore those changes.
    I consider this resolved. Amalthea 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I panicked. When I tried to use {{Welcome-anon}}, the template didn't work both time I tried to sub it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was in the middle of the same panic, and had not yet finished testing the changed templates in the sandbox when you guys reverted all of the modifications. Having an approved bot do this sort of work would help to avoid these situations in the future. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or even just link to a discussion on the matter - even a lightly trafficked one like in this case. –xeno^talk 19:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a wise old BAG saying. :) And Anomie's trial edits did just that, of course. Amalthea 20:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, don't worry about it. As I said, with you thinking the mess would get bigger the longer the changes stayed unreverted the reaction was understandable. Just run it by ANI first, next time. Amalthea 20:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am fine with anything that happened. Sorry about the confusion with the {{welcome-anon}} template. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user 71.163.232.225 has been repeatedly using the discussion page Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases to discuss sex abuse and complain about the Catholic church. He has also been making disruptive changes to the article itself, much to the anger of other editors. It appears that he has even been removing large chunks from the discussion page and he was abusing the editor joo. He has created multiple sections on the discussion page exclusively for the purpose of arguing about sex abuse rather than discussing the article itself. Various other editors had been asking him to stop on the talk page itself.

I myself went to his talk page, User_talk:71.163.232.225, to repeatedly warn him about using discussion pages for chatting about the topic, but instead of stopping his argumentative and confrontational behaviour on the discussion page, he merely removed the contents of his talk page in an attempt to hide the warnings. He then came to my talk page and, in a confrontational tone, told me to stay away from his. User:Hyperdeath then joined him. In fact, it seems that User:Hyperdeath is quite a supporter of the IP editor.

From comments by User:LAz17 and User:Salvio_giuliano on his talk page, it seems that this IP editor has also been causing trouble in the article House of Crijević.

Here are some of the diffs for the page Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=359622104&oldid=359599043

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=359424236&oldid=359415091

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=359340080&oldid=359230182

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=358759122&oldid=358757979

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=358551816&oldid=358551353

...and here, he removed a huge chunk of text from the discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=358520829&oldid=358454735 (Huey45 (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Concerning House of Cerva/House of Crijević, the user tends to prefer edit warring, instead of discussing. But, to his defence, lately almost everyone seems to be edit warring on those two articles, as shown by the respective revision histories: House of Crijević and House of Cerva. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least 4 editors (including me) on the Catholic sex abuse cases have written on the discussion that this guy ought to be banned from editing. 1) He kept inserting his own PoV instead of referencing reliable sources, 2) He deletes relevant materials, 3) He uses the Discussion page as a soapbox to attack the Catholic Church with irrelevant material, 4) He even deletes an entire section in the discussion page. joo (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ROBERT TAGGART (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked repeatedly for various bits of disruptive editing and is also a sockpuppeteer (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ROBERT TAGGART/Archive). He seems to have stopped using his named account, though the latest block has expired, and instead uses a series of IP addresses from Vodaphone to make his almost daily "contributions" to Wikipedia. A typical example are the latest edits made by 212.183.140.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): a) restoring an old modification to Wythenshawe, which has previously been reverted by several editor; b) partial blanking of talk pages for his other IP addresses; c) choice bits of vandalism to some editor's talk page (usually mine), using his favorite expletive, "dweeb". Regarding item b on the list, I know that users are allowed to blank their talk pages, but in this case he blanks those belonging (technically) to other IPs and he removes shared IP templates, which is against WP:BLANKING. For the record, he has been made aware of this rule here, and lost no time replying thusly.

The various IP addresses have been temporarily blocked as they make themselves known, but playing Whac-A-Mole with this guy is a bit tiresome, so I request assistance from the administrators. Favonian (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked but [60] edited his talkpage, it begs the question, with the rise in dynamic wi fi address and such like it seems wikipedia has no way to deal with disruption from such determined people. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a depressing thought. Springtime is not improving his temper, as shown by this token of gratitude on Mazca's user page, presumably for blocking the earlier IP sock. Favonian (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to attract his attention as he seems to have forgotten about me. Why not just block his whole region for six months? Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, you too had the pleasure of his attention for a while. Maybe we should create a new member of Category:Wikipedia fauna, WikiDweeb. All we need is clever little icon to put on top of our user pages ;) Favonian (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our "friend" has sent this message to us, though for some reason best known to himself edited by the daily sock. Should we at least oblige him by indef blocking the named account? Seems like he has earned it. As for the IPs, I'm all in favor of Off2riorob's suggestion, but I can imagine that there might be some opposition to it. Any alternative suggestions? Favonian (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing multiple accounts, being generally obnoxious, personal attacks, claims of multiple-use of the account... and not indef'd on the main account. Till now. And with talk page locked (see previous sentence). ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 10:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, lo, did Mr Taggart drop back to 212.183.140.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and resume the attacks. Lovely. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 10:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me thinks he craves attention. Thanks for blocking 212.183.140.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well! Favonian (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he has transferred his attention to you. Favonian (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Unblocked by Tnxman307

• HalfShadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Link to block discussion: [61]

HalfShadow is requesting to be unblocked. He's been blocked for 2 weeks at this point over the insertion of an inappropriate picture into a BLP, and to comments made regarding that insertion. He has admitted that the picture and the comments were "stupid" and ill-timed. I am putting this at ANI, since the initial block discussion happened here. I am inclined to think that an unblock is in order, given that blocks are not supposed to be punitive. I don't think we need to demand an apology or allocution or anything like that here; all we need to ask ourselves is "is the behavior that led to the block likely to continue if we unblock." Since I feel confident that it will not, I think an unblock is appropriate. What thinks everyone else? --Jayron32 15:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock - they've realized the error of their ways and apologized for their ill-advised comment - the original block for that would've expired by now. –xeno^talk 15:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, why not. Tan | 39 15:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of reasons why not. If we unblock we don't do it lightly.--Scott Mac 15:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Strongly oppose unblock for at least another fortnight three weeks. Anyone who "contributes" this or this (that second one is particularly vile) needs more than two weeks' one week's break in my opinion. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, DiaF is really just an internet meme/acronym. I doubt that he was literally wishing that other editors be consumed in a ball of flame. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously—I also doubt he was literally planning to assault any admin who wasn't "a country's distance apart" from him. However, such comments are not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 16:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  People get angry; it's human nature. It wasn't worth an indefinite block the first time, it isn't worth one now. Leaving him blocked is not preventative in any sense of the word. -- tariqabjotu 16:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that it's preventative of the boring amount of disruption and trouble that will ensue from letting someone capable of saying that sort of crap back into the community. (Note that I never suggested an indef-block, if you read what I wrote, I think a minimum of one month.) ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 16:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original blocking admin. He was blocked one week ago (not two) for highly inappropriate trolling wrt a BLP. He also got a fairly checkered blocklog too. I blocked him for a week, but that was extended to indef by others, largely due to the fact that he continued to deny serious wrongdoing. No, blocks are not punative and we don't demand apologies, but we do demand that users understand what they've done wrong and are able to reflect on the behaviour to avoid. I can support an unblock here. However, there are two conditions a) the user is banned from editing or commenting on Don Murphy in any shape or form. b) the user understands that they are on general probation - any further problems, and in particular BLP related problems will result in the situation being reviewed. Wikipedia is not a game. Writing about living people demands the utmost maturity.--Scott Mac 15:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am cautiously okay with this. HalfShadow, please take the time to check or ask someone if you are not absolutely positive on the copyright status of an image. Linking to a source on the talkpage and living with no image on the article while it is discussed would not be a bad idea. You do good work here, and I would hate to see you in another fiasco like this. Staying away from contentious BLPs for a little while might also not be a bad idea, especially that one. Best of luck and happy editing. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think an unblock is perfectly fine. Remember that the original offending action only garnered a one-week block. Frankly, from reading the progress of what happened (without providing input during the last discussion), I thought the blocks were heavy-handed and excessive the first time around. The fact that he apologized at all is surprising; I don't think him doing so was a pre-requisite for an unblock. -- tariqabjotu 16:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock 2/0 and Tariqajotu make good enough points for me. SGGH ^ping! 16:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock per Tariqabjotu. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked HalfShadow per the discussion here. Questions, comments, or review is certainly welcome. TNXMan 17:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock - As long as HalfShadow acknowledges that the behavior was wrong, and understands what led to the block, and won't repeat it in the future, then I see no reason to continue the block. -- Atama頭 18:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I also do not support an unblock for this editor after only a week. Block history does not show any change in behavior. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no particular view on the unblock. However, given the user was blocked indefinitely - and has remained blocked for 8 days - and that there's clearly some discussion required here, I consider Tnxman307's unblock only two hours after this discussion opened to have been highly improper. There was certainly no rush to unblock, and leaving time for people to look at the history, consider the block log, and discuss for at least a few hours, if not 12-24, would have been proper. This is a very poor admin call indeed.--Scott Mac 21:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, that was my reaction too. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 21:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does seem premature, he has been blocked ten times now, four times this year. So he must be aware that he is on a short leash? and I am sure that editors supporting his unblock at this time will keep an eye on him. Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it was "a poor admin call" will depend on what happens next. Unlike you I don't have the benefit of a crystal ball. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, yeah, no; gonna have to call you out on that one. I've been blocked four times. Ever. And one of them was only for 15 minutes. A nice swing, but you've sliced and gone into the forest. You may have to mulligan HalfShadow 21:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think coming here with that tone is really counter-productive. Better to try to reassure us that you've learned the lessons.--Scott Mac 21:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well so is misrepresenting my block log, but hey... HalfShadow 21:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well excuse me, here is your block log, it is very messy and I only counted the blocks and not the unblocks and it has a continuing theme. Whatever you want to link to, there are clear issues that you are not showing to have learnt anything from. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)::[reply]

I'd also call it ironic, seeing as you have seven blocks. Glass houses and all that. HalfShadow 21:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have been blocked but I have over eight months editing and over twenty thousand edits since my last block. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, you have more blocks than me, so until this physically changes, please leave the air of superiority in your other pants; at best it's hypocritical. HalfShadow 16:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see 5 distinct legitimate blocks on record for HalfShadow including the most recent (February 2009, March 2009, November 2009, February 2010, April 2010), and the February 2010 block was only for 15 minutes. What's relevant is that HalfShadow has caused trouble in the past, which nobody seems to dispute, but there is a consensus at this time that there's no need for a current block unless evidence of new disruption is brought forth. -- Atama頭 21:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that editors supporting this unblock will keep a close eye on the editor. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock is ok - the indef block was considered a bit extreme to many when it was made, and there was agreement at the time that it would be reviewed in a week, which it was. I think there was too much drama around the blocks in the first place. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock; I'm not sure it was justified in the first place, and certainly if the user has pledged not to repeat the conduct there is no basis for continuing it. Everyking (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actress Lynn Redgrave died today.

Lynn Redgrave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anticipating the article might get some attention, I took a look. It contained the image File:LynnRedgrave.jpg, which I viewed as a probable copyright violation as a scan of a move poster released under a cc-own claim. I deleted it as such.

I then went to have words with the uploader: JohnClarknew (talk · contribs). I noticed that he claims to be John Clark (actor/director) the ex-husband of the late actress. If he is, then the image may well be his own work (although not certainly). If he isn't, then there's a problem with the claims on his userpage. I've asked him to contact OTRS wrt his identity.

Posting here for review as the article is likely to get a fair amount of attention today.--Scott Mac 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I wouldn't be surprised if he won't respond for a while, though.--Chaser (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to short-circuit the OTRS, but I can vouch for JohnClarknew being who he says he is. We've corresponded regarding Wikipedia content.   Will Beback  talk  18:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonymous accounts (no offence) "vouching" isn't really an equivalent.--Scott Mac 18:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. I've met the man in person, some time ago, and when he started this account I wrote to him. There's no question that he is who he says he is, though you're welcome to pursue the matter as you see fit. I don't know what OTRS can do to further establish his identity.   Will Beback  talk  19:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, since we don't know your identity, you vouching for someone else's doesn't take us anywhere much. Certainly not anywhere enough to legitimise a copyright claim.--Scott Mac 20:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would OTRS, a process managed by a bunch of other people behind pseudonymous accounts, make any difference then. At some point, you're going to have to trust somebody. I fail to see how OTRS would provide more trust than would someone that personally knows the person in question. Will Beback is a longtime user in good standing, we have no reason to believe he is lying about his relationship with John Clark, what could happen at OTRS which would somehow be better? --Jayron32 20:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS works because the individual who is verifying can e-mail from an named account - and that email is then logged on the system. Any of the OTRS ops can check it at any time in the future. That is the proper process for image copyright permissons (see WP:PERMISSIONS). We don't, and never have, worked on the basis of AGF with such things.--Scott Mac 20:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He specifically said he was verifying his identity and not the copyright status of the image. It seems we are not getting at the same thing here. Of course OTRS should be used to keep track of official copyright claims. However, I think we can trust Will Beback for positively identifying the owner of the account. In my mind the copyright issue is completely unrelated to Will's (or my) statement. Sorry about the mixup. --Jayron32 21:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS accounts are not pseudonymous. They are in the volunteers' real names and I believe that volunteers are all identified to the Foundation (I certainly am). If you want to dispute OTRS as a source of authentication of intellectual property ownership then you're going to have to completely change parts of the image licensing workflow. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that the rights to a movie poster are held by the film studio though, not the director. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Maybe we can ask him if he has any personal photos he can share.   Will Beback  talk  18:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really an appropriate time to be bothering the man over what is, after all, a pretty minor concern at best? Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This man has a conflict of interest and should stick to editing non-Redgrave articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Looks like he's edited his own biography. No-no! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is discouraged, not forbidden. The edits I saw were minor only. It's also extremely bad form to badger people around the time of a bereavement, I am sure if Will is already in contact then he will be able to discuss the issue of a photograph with the necessary sensitivity. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly User:Moutray2010 is using Wikipedia as a genealogy site. All of his new page edits have been on pages that are now deleted or are up for AFD (see User:timneu22/moutray). His edits to existing pages have almost all been reverted. This user is certainly a nuisance to the community, and his 72-hour block may not be sufficient. Thoughts? — Timneu22 · talk 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user has currently been [blocked], about 3 hours ago. I and several other experienced editors and admins have left some advice and are trying to work with this user. At this point, there's not much else to do. I declined his recent unblock request, but so far I am not sure there is anything left to do. He's been blocked for 72 hours, and there is some preliminary attempts at mentoring going on. Lets let this one get worked out for now. --Jayron32 20:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware (and mentioned) his 72-hour ban, but honestly I don't think he's going to come back and start editing other topics. Mentoring, sadly, seems like a lost cause here. — Timneu22 · talk 20:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. As yet, no one seems to have tried to work with him to help him assimilate into Wikipedia culture. Like many others, he just appears to be a noob who doesn't know how things work, and there is little evidence that anyone has tried to set him straight. You may very well be right, but until the block expires, and/or until he has outright rejected attempts at mentoring, what else should we do? --Jayron32 20:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's been pretty aggressive with his insults and has shown no desire to learn or any insight into the idea that some of the problems might be his behavior. I think several people would have been willing to work with him if he'd shown the slightest desire to cooperate. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting indefinite ban from Wikipedia. I received a user-email from Moutray2010:

you are ridiculous and pathetic .
i will just keep reposting , as your biased attitude is apparent .
your opinion means nothing to me .

This user has now stated that his goal is to disrupt and continue reposting this nonsense. Why would we let someone like that make edits? — Timneu22 · talk 09:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even in light of the recent email, I am still willing to chalk it up to "pissed off after the block and just venting." The current 72 hour block is still active, and before enacting any other blocks or bans, I still think we need to wait for some further, definative on-wiki disruption. A pissed-off email from a blocked user is hardly an unusual development in a case like this. --Jayron32 13:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-doke. I hope it all works out well! — Timneu22 · talk 13:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully he'll be spotted as soon as he resumes. If you get more email, or anyone else does, let us know here. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I originally posted this on Abecedare's talk page in response to an accusation of edit warring made against another editor, but he seems to be on a wikibreak so I've brought it here. Radiopathy (talk · contribs) is under a 1RR restriction, and coming off a week-long block for socking. One if his first mainspace edits upon returning from the block was to change infobox information [62], then when his change was reverted he reverted back to his preferred version [63]. He then went on to accuse the other editor of edit warring on Abecedare's page [64].

As background, Radiopathy has been blocked multiple times for edit warring on this sort of thing. He's under an indefinite 1RR, and was recently caught socking to evade his restrictions and block log Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radiopathy/Archive. Radiopathy has long edit warred over whether or not to include the full name of the country in the infobox, he claims the MOS doesn't apply to the infobox, other editors (including myself) disagree and Radiopathy feels he's right and there's no need to discuss. He's had three week-long blocks in the last six months.

When I posted this on Abecedare's page, Radiopathy's first response was to blank my edit [65], then to accuse me of edit warring [66] without any kind of DIFFs or proof. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radiopathy notified here [67] I've moved this to ANI. Dayewalker (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is he on 0RR or 1RR? If he's on 1RR, he's only made 1 revert, no? –xeno^talk 20:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per the ANI discussions (as can be seen from his block log), he's on indefinite 1RR. My understanding of 1RR is that an editor on 1RR is entitled to make changes, but if someone else reverts that change, re-reversion is not allowed. ("If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them.") He made the disputed edit above, then reverted to the edit again when another editor corrected him. If that's not a violation, then I apologize, and will close this thread. Dayewalker (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... That sounds more like a 0RR to me (see also a relevant discussion from the talk page of that essay). I personally wouldn't feel comfortable sanctioning an editor based on an essay. Where is the actual original restriction noted? –xeno^talk 20:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I've changed the title of this section based on Xeno's comments. Dayewalker (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've changed the essay to reflect a more common-sense understanding of 1RR. That being said if "1RR" is being handed down as an official sanction, it really ought be codified in a guideline rather than left to be explained in an essay. –xeno^talk 20:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to be offline for quite a while, hopefully someone else has the official 1RR notice for Radiopathy from one of his ANI threads. If I'm incorrect here, I apologize. However while the specifics of 1RR are debatable, I feel certain this user was well aware of what they were doing based on their history of blocks for violating 1RR, their quickness to accuse other editors of edit warring, and their deletion of my first comments to Abecedare. If consensus is there's no violation, feel free to close this thread. Dayewalker (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but I'll have to leave it to someone more familiar with the history here to comment on that. –xeno^talk 21:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the indef 1rr restriction notice.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing officially listed at WP:ER, but the 1RR notice on Radiopathy's talk page references WP:1RR. That does allow for one revert per day, which is what I usually restrict myself to voluntarily at any article. Xeno's recent change to the essay does reflect my interpretation of the restriction, and the way I've seen most others interpret it as well; it literally allows one revert per editor per article per day. The intent of such a restriction is to allow one revert to demonstrate clearly that the edit that was made was objected to. If the revert is uncontested, then it stays in place, no harm done. If the revert is undone, then discussion should take place rather than further reverts escalating into an edit war. I'm not one of Radiopathy's defenders, certainly, but I don't see that the restriction has been breached here. Furthermore, despite what may seem like aggressiveness in giving warnings to editors about edit wars, that is certainly in the spirit of 1RR to try to move the content dispute away from article space and into talkspace.

On the other hand, I don't see any justification for blanking out the message at Abecedare's talk page, which seems in violation of WP:TPO. -- Atama頭 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The blanking was a mistake, and I am the one who undid it.
• I only reverted once at George Harrison, then left the message on Abecedare's talk page about Daedalus969 edit warring, and relented. If you check the edit histories of George Harrison and The Beatles, you'll see that this has come up many times before; Daedalus969 was told in an edit summary months ago that what he was doing was edit warring. This is an ongoing issue which has little to do with MoS, and in this particular instance is not an actual 1RR violation. Radiopathy •talk• 23:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So 1RR actually means you're allowed to insert disputed material twice? Once originally inserted, then reinserted? If that's the case, then this case is obviously not valid and can be closed. If 3RR means you can edit that material in the same way three times (counting the original entry) before crossing the line, 1RR would seem to mean you can edit the material once, then you should discuss. I guess I'm confusing an edit (even a reversion of previously removed material) with a revert. Dayewalker (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1RR applies to actually reverting material. Inserting material into an article for the first time, even if it is disputed, is not a reversion. Re-inserting it after it has been removed is. From what I can see of this case, the user has only reverted once and, so, is within their 1RR restriction. Silverseren^C 23:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The material usually isn't "disputed" until someone protests its inclusion, so the first insertion of disputed material wouldn't be until the reinsertion from the original editor. 3RR does not mean you can edit the material in the same way three times before crossing the "bright line", 3RR means three reverts. To give an example, let's say User A adds info to an article and User B reverts that change. The edit log might look like this:

• User A introduces info.
• User B undoes the edit. (1st revert)
• User A reinserts the info. (1st revert)
• User B deletes the info. (2nd revert)
• User A undoes the deletion. (2nd revert)
• User B replaces the info with something different (3rd revert - at 3RR)
• User A rewords the information to match their original edit. (3rd revert - at 3RR)
• User B undoes the previous edit from User A. (4th revert - 3RR broken)
• User A deletes the information that User B introduced. (4th revert - 3RR broken)

The 3RR rule states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period." It defines a revert as "any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". Just swap out the word "three" with the word "one", and you have the 1RR restriction. Sometimes editors are restricted to 1RR in a longer time period, 1 week is a common duration seen at WP:ER, but Radiopathy seems restricted to one per day from what I can see. -- Atama頭 23:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(OD)Radiopathy, as said above, has actually been edit warring about this material for some time. If one were to say that the first reversion is the first time the war started, they would be wrong, as it really started quite awhile ago. Here are the most recent of his reverts:

• 02:22, May 3, 2010 UTC
• 14:42, May 2, 2010 UTC

So, as you can see, his two most recent reversions take place within a 24 hour period, violating his restriction of one revert per 24 hours. I need to stress that editing content while reverting does not make the edit any less of a revert, that would fall under gaming the system, and thus does not fly.

Neither of those two are of course the first time the change was initially made, which if was the case, it would make the one at May 2nd the first. However, as said, the first change regarding such an edit happened months ago. In light of that, he has been edit warring over this change for months, and has been blocked several times before his 1rr restriction to that end.

Here, for instance, is a reverison he made a few weeks earlier, with his sockpuppet:

• 14:03, April 17, 2010

There are of course many other reversions. I can easily find and post them if required.. however, I don't think that's needed.

Radiopathy clearly violated his 1rr restriction, as the two reverts took place during a 24 hour period. I personally think per the above, this is an open and shut case.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalus's post, of course, assumes that I'm the one who's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; however, his persistence in making provocative non-consensus edits clearly points to him being the edit warrior - and worse. It's very telling that he has not made any changes to any Britain-related articles that I have not also edited. Radiopathy •talk• 00:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't be more wrong. I'm busy in real life, maybe you have noticed I've made few to no edits in the last hour except to this thread. Also, you speak of consensus for your edits. Care to point out where you gained such a consensus?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And really, it isn't telling of anything when I've been editing that article before you even started.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, do not put words in my mouth. I never said you were disrupting wikipedia to make a point, I said you were edit warring in clear violation of your 1rr restriction.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, my edits are not to provoke, they are per the manual of style, which quite clearly does -not- exclude info boxes.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg L made several comments at the reliable sources noticeboard that I viewed as defamatory statements about John Sugg, a journalist and living person whose article was being discussed as a source. The relevant quotes from Greg L are:

• "Sugg… has no standing being used as a Wikipedia citation any more than other flakes with wild conspiracy notions..."
• "...Sugg’s galactic-grade unreliability (fantasy fiction)..."
• "I’ve struck and corrected my post, which still shows that Sugg is an idiot."

I asked the editor to strike or refactor their comments, both on the noticeboard itself, as well as on the user's talk page. The user replied with a lengthy essay about why they felt justified in their comments. Rather than derail that discussion, I thought I'd bring up the issue here. I'm not seeking any sort of punitive action against Greg L, but I believe calling someone "an idiot" is a violation of WP:BLP—even when done at RSN. Greg L suggested I contact an uninvolved administrator if I wanted his comments modified, which is why I'm here. ← George ^talk 21:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If an administrator does decide to refactor Greg L's comments, please also correct the spelling of Sugg as Slugg. ← George ^talk 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the expression of opinion ventured across the BLP expressable line; the opinion, however, seems reasonable. Expression bad, opinion ok, requested refactor. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As I pointed out to George the nom, and he acknowledged elsewhere, his post here failed to reflect this P.S. that Greg L had left at the RSN. Greg L's post squarely addressed the nom's issue, 51 minutes prior to this AN/I being opened. This AN/I is needless wikidrama -- as to Greg L (though not as to the remaining three of us).

It also strikes me as odd that such great sensitivity and concern is being directed at of all things this particular alleged crossing of the line. While the nom (and, admittedly, most others at that discussion) have evidenced complete insensitivity to the instances raised much earlier in the very same discussion of BLPs (supported only by a non-RS) stating that individuals have suggested that others be killed, be shot, that they were incited to kill someone by living person X, and that have contained all manner of racism, sexism, and anti-semitism. I encouraged the editors in that discussion to delete those references. Yet George, rather than address those far more serious references by removing them from those BLPs, chose to raise this issue -- first at the RSN, and now here.

Perhaps it is as Bertrand Russell says: "Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid.".--Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An offer to correct a post which is never acted upon isn't useful. Ignoring an administrator's request is likewise non-productive. To the best of my knowledge, I never "suggested that others be killed, be shot..." or any of the other things you listed, and I can't really understand what that sentence means, so maybe you could clarify, or leave me out of the group that shows "complete insensitivity" to whatever you're talking about. ← George ^talk 08:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And, since there are especially restrictive requirements on putting posts in user-talk space, I corrected George’s comments and the thread title on my talk page (here) in order to not mention Sugg by name there. Curiously, George elected to not adhere to this counsel and did so again. I am accordingly deleting that thread in its entirety. Please try to ensure that controversial discussions of Sugg are limited to venues such as the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where such material must be strictly limited. I also corrected my “Slugg” spelling, which was entirely unintentional. Sorry for that. Greg L (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations: Epeefleche, John Z, and Annoynmous

The underlying problem here is Epeefleche's original post, which manages to seriously defame both Emerson and Sugg. Epeefleche said, and Greg L repeated that Sugg claimed "1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India."

Neither Sugg nor Emerson said nor did anything so dangerous or crazy. This is not at all what Sugg says in his FAIR article. What Sugg said was that Emerson helped push a phony Pakistani defector's made-up story that "Pakistan was planning nuclear first strike on India." Very, very different.John Z (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, then I would say “the proper response to bad speech is better speech.” I just repeated there what Epee wrote. If that point-of-fact is not true—or has been stretched beyond all comprehension so it isn’t a fair characterization of the facts, then please state as much there. What I wrote there was what I believed to be the truth of the matter at that time. If what is clearly my opinion there at Reliable Sources Noticeboard *truly* meets Wikipedia’s criteria for “defamation”, then I should think that in order to protect Sugg’s fine, fine reputation, there would exist a clear imperative to expediently remove the defamatory opinion. Accordingly, I hereby give my permission to any uninvolved Admin who finds my posts to be defamatory (and clearly not a simple matter of opinion that has an unfortunate tone) to delete any and all of my offending statements by deleting the offending post in its entirety. I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia can not have “clearly defamatory” information on its pages, even on RSN; I’m just not clearly seeing it yet and so will yield to wiser uninvolved admins. Greg L (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that the offending phrase goes back at least to Annoynmous's first edit here, and earlier, as he says he was restoring material, and that I and other editors pressed save in the Emerson article when it contained this phrase.John Z (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnZ:

1. I am a living person.
2. Next time you disparage me with a contentious and untrue "fact", if it is in a conversation that I am not party to, I would appreciate you letting me know. You failed to do so here.
3. Your above statement as to me is not only contentious, as you well know (if you've read the sentence in full, that you quoted somehow only in part) it is completely untrue.
4. You untruthfully state that my post seriously defames both (your shocked emphasis) Emerson and Sugg.
5. You untruthfully state that I said that Sugg claimed "1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India...."
6. As you know, if you've read the sentence in question in full, what my sentence really says is that (quoting just a few more words from the sentence):

"Specific "facts" asserted by Sugg, according to those 5 paras [those being the 5 paras that Annoynmous had inserted, and which I was seeking to delete, are: 1. That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India."

To borrow your characterization: "Very, very different."

7. I'm more than a little miffed at your easy-to-catch error, at your defaming me, and at your doing it without even tendering me the slight courtesy of a note that you were doing it. Is everyone looking for a bona fide BLP violation? Ladies and Gentlemen: We have a winner.

8. Given that you are a NPOV editor, and your comments here were made in good faith, I look forward to you making this same accusation at the AN/I that is open with regard to the disruptive editing of your colleague Annoynmous. Accusing him, as passionately as you accused me, of the same defamation.

9. Of course, if you were a POV editor, I imagine we would not see you making the same passionate charge against your colleague at his AN/I. I assume good faith, however, and look forward to our seeing your post there.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies. I screwed up badly. There were so many he said, she saids involved that again, I screwed up badly in saying who was saying who had said what.John Z (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at this interminable thread, I note that you did, as far as I can see, accidentally, and in good faith, like everyone else here, indicate that you believed Sugg had definitely said #1. Not just that the 5 paras said Sugg said #1. Later on in the thread: "Sugg didn't state those above-listed items as his opinion. He said they were "facts" (not, "in my opinion E said x"). " Has anyone kept things entirely straight in their head and in their posts here? ;-) John Z (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The context makes absolutely clear that what I was writing was "as presented in the 5 paras". It follows that in the string. One doesn't repeat every caveat, etc in these strings -- just as one doesn't write out the name of FAIR each time.

And, as you know, you were quoting the very sentence where I made it clear that I was referring to those 5 paras. Not some later sentence you're now trying to make a silk purse out of.

It doesn't explain your failure to notify me. It doesn't explain you quoting a misleading, limited portion of the sentence. It doesn't explain you defaming me.

And it doesn't explain why I haven't yet seen your damning post at your colleague's AN/I. Which I hope to see shortly. I'm quite annoyed -- I thought, whatever our different points of view at times, that you were above all this. It's not cricket.

I'm frankly disgusted by the duplicity here -- crying that these people you've not dealt with are being defamed --- while actually you are defaming me, with whom you are dealing -- you fail to notify me == and you still haven't stepped up to level the same charge, with the same passion, against your colleague, at the AN/I where his similar misconduct is being considered.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche, I have apologized above. It is quite clear that in the later post you referred to the "5 paras" but you then quite explicitly made the same mistake many others did: You said Sugg said: #1 Emerson was involved in a plot... No, one does absolutely always repeat necessary caveats, because if one doesn't one makes improper accusations. In this matter of 'He said she said X said Y said', if one omits one of the saids one gets an entirely different meaning. Before you responded, I accused Annoynmous (see below) and myself of making the same error in article space. What else should I criticize Annoynmous for? I explained my own actions above and on your talk page: I screwed up badly. I'll say it again: I screwed up badly.John Z (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sense I've been brought into this discussion, I would like know when I ever defamed anyone. I think I once called Emerson an Idiot, which I acknowledge was wrong. I used that phrase because I was frankly very upset at Greg L's insulting tone and in the heat of the moment I used language I shouldn't have. I will say for my part that depsite my profound disagreement with epeefleche on many things, I don't remeber him ever using POV language of the kind Greg L is accused of. However, I think he's overeacting here somewhat. John Z said he was sorry, except it and let's move on. annoynmous 05:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annoynmous: Oops again: I cited your edit here, which is a bit ambiguous, but the problem phrase really was in the next edit by yet another editor here, and that phrasing remained in many subsequent edits. I don't think anyone acted in bad faith, just a broken telephone resulted in article edits desired by no one, that defamed both Emerson and Sugg, which people then took on faith and used as the basis of unfortunate statements. What a mess!John Z (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Annon: The defamation that you engaged in (by inserting the language into the BLP Emerson article; repeatedly) was the precise defamation that John Z mistakenly accused me of above.

I imagine that the following statements that you made constitute BLP violations as well -- your saying at the RSN that it seems a fellow editor “has proved once again that he knows nothing about nothing", and “apparently operates under the rationale of "I don't like you, your not allowing my bias to reign on wikipedia, how can I get you banned" (when nobody mentioned a ban, or that they dislike you), that a fellow editor thinks he owns Wikipedia, that a fellow editor hasn’t “contributed anything worthwhile to this discussion", and that a fellow editor has “whined”. I note that you followed all that with the statement: “I believe in civility”.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never inserted POV language into the article. All I did was add Suggs criticism of Emerson and his opinion of him. The quotes about TWA and the first WTC attack are not denied by Emerson. He merely says that many others made the same mistake. I agree that the pakistani thing shouldn't be in until a more reliable source is found, but I don't see what's wrong with the rest of it.

Greg L never threatened to ban me? So I supposed I was just dreaming comments like this:

If such editors won’t get with the game plan, they can simply be given a time out in the corner

Your telling me that's not a threat of a ban?

My language above was born out of frustration with Greg L's attitude. I'm sorry if I speak the truth, but the fact is he didn't contribute anything to the article and spent most of his time on the page insulting me. There's no rule that says I have to sit back take abuse. annoynmous 08:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Epee et al: Epeefleche, we all did end up making these defamatory statements, you and Greg L were probably the last in the broken telephone. I again apologize for saying that your RSN post started it, which is quite untrue. Annoynmous wrote something confusing, another editor was confused and reworded it badly to say something quite unintended, you tried to eliminate it and many other things, and other people, including Annoynmous and me, not seeing that precise problem, reverted to the clearly BLP violating, original to Wikipedia, wording. This wording was eventually taken as fact, as what Sugg said Emerson said, by everyone at RSN, and this thread got started when Greg noticed how crazy the statement attributed to Sugg was but took it as factual, and derided Sugg. Again, a mess. I hope this might explain a little, to each other, Annoynmous, Greg's, mine, etc less than perfectly thoughtful statements. Good night to all.John Z (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thoughtful summary. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am once again reminded of the extreme importance of going to the source to see about what is and is not “factual.” So I read Sugg’s “Steven Emerson's Crusade” article in FAIR. Clever guy. He hides his accusations behind the apron strings of questions: Did self-styled anti-terrorism expert Steven Emerson help push the world toward nuclear war? Indeed, inquiring minds want to know. The FAIR article in question is an op-ed piece by an author whose, uhm… *suggestions* are, uhm… *novel* and have dubious uhm… *truthiness* in my opinion. Whereas Sugg might be an exceedingly fine author, and might have some exceedingly good works out there, in my oh-so exceedingly humble opinion, “Steven Emerson's Crusade” isn’t one of his better works. It was arguably a defamatory, POV-pushing piece, his writings on Emerson were the subject of a defamation lawsuit, and the article has absolutely no business being used in citations in Wikipedia’s BLPs—IMOSEHO.

  I could not possibly agree more with Jimbo when he wrote (∆ here): "No defamation was ever proved" is so very very far from what I consider to be a valid argument in support of considering something a WP:RS that I'm shocked to even see it written in a discussion in Wikipedia. That is an argument with absolutely no merit whatsoever. Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. The first five words in Jimbo’s post—the quoted part—was in reference to a post from Annoynmous (∆ here). Yeah, I’d say Jimbo’s common-sense assessment of the matter is something I entirely agree with; we need to go with other reliable sources and not mention Sugg’s piece at all. This is all a big do-da about reliable sources. Sugg’s op-ed piece, while having a message point some find welcome and refreshing, has no business being used as a citation on Wikipedia—IMOSEHO. Greg L (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User:Eagles247 did not know deleted edits played a factor in edit count for autoconfirmed status. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had my userpage indefinitely semi-protected due to vandalism from IPs, and today Weakamus (talk · contribs) vandalized it. This user had 8 edits prior to the vandalism and created his account in August 2008. How was this user able to edit my userpage even though they weren't autoconfirmed? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They had four deleted edits that probably pushed the total past the threshold. Resolute 22:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I didn't realize deleted edits count towards that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tanthalas39 unblock

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – In case it gets lost down at the bottom, I've unblocked Tan. I'm unlikely to revisit this unproductive thread on my own, so if you say something to me here, please ping my talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] As the thread up above is closed, I figured I'd start a new one. I'd like to get a consensus to unblock Tanthlas39 with immediate effect to time served. I didn't like the way the thread was heading, certainly not the attitude that Tanthalas39 was expressing, but I don't see how this block is helpful at this point in time. He's desysopped now, I think it's in everyone's interests to unblock Tan and allow him to contribute to any discussions regarding his desysopping. I don't really have an opinion of the original block - but I think an unblock now would be the best thing to do. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] That sounds entirely reasonable to me. IMO abuse of admin privileges should not normally lead to anything worse than loss of admin privileges, and this doesn't look like the kind of egregious case that asks for more than that. Hans Adler 10:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] May as well unblock. Originally a warning would have been adequate, and the desysop has taken care of the use of admin tools by Tan, so at this point I think there is no reason to stop Tan from editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] A completely ridiculous and altogether avoidable situation. While Tanthalas39 did not respond to the provocation wisely, his was not the first error in the sequence (nor, unfortunately, was it the last). Can everyone be properly smacked and can we move on as painlessly as possible from this unnecessary drama? Support unblock (and support rebitting). jæs (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Unblock and do something about Prodego who is now running free and smelling of roses. Jeni (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Unblock. To keep Tan blocked is entirely punative and not preventative of anything. Pedro :  Chat  11:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep blocked for the time being, Tan has a history of provocative behaviour (to say the least), and he said th Coren that he was fully aware of the consequences of his behaviour, so it looks like a "suicide by Arbcom" to me. He can email Arbcom, and post on his talk page, just like any other blocked editor. DuncanHill (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Unblock but I'm not sure who's going to have the gonads to do it. The most recent block was enacted by a member ArbComm - unfortunately wrongly and out of process, and I still like my 'nads enough that I don't want to see them in today's soup. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Unblock Tan and Turian. Tan's comments were the worst of the bunch, so if he gets unblocked so should Turian, IMO. All the arguments above for unblocking Tan apply to all parties involved. Equazcion (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm expressing no opinion on the various blocks (I try to stay blissfully ignorant of blocking policy for sanity's sake, although I notice that ANI continues to be dominated by childish discussion), but all of this started with User:John, who has a history of provoking other editors with uncivil statements.[72] A discussion of what unfolded here is incomplete without looking at its origins, and addressing the problems of admin behavior at their source. When uncivil admins provoke other editors, the outcome is inevitable, and good editors are drug into the ensuing mess. As to the closed thread regarding mentorship of User:Turian, mentorship of editors with a disruptive history rarely produces the desired outcome, and those editors should be shown the door quickly, to avoid dragging down productive editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] I very much agree with the first part of what you say; I have no opinion on whether mentoring would be effective in this case or not. The whole unhappy incident was started by User:John's habitual rudeness in a discussion over tagging Scarlett JohnsonScarlett Johansson. Turian became involved in a misguided and overly aggressive defence of John's behaviour over several pages, and began to lash out and all and sundry; the rest is history. It's absurd to focus on just one episode in that saga and ignore the factors that precipitated its unfolding. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have never edited Scarlett Johnson in my life. --John (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] This may be what they mean by provoking others, with an edit summary of "missed the bus", as I think you are sharp enough to figure out that Malleus was mixing up his tartlets and meant to say Scarlett Johansson. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I did realise that. Is it provoking others to ask for a correction? Some diffs and a notification that my conduct was being discussed would have been nice too. The "missed the bus" summary refers to Malleus's comment here. What exactly was MF's locus in commenting aggressively on my talk page like this? If you are looking for a "root cause" of this matter, this editor's conduct may bear more inspection than mine. All I did was improve an article. --John (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Given that Coren asked Tan to contact the ArbCom mailing list, I'm presuming that the block has been done under ArbCom authority, and I really think that it's a bad idea to go around unblocking or otherwise poking admin tools at the whole sorry mess. With that said, a block seems a bit over-dramatic, although a case could be made for desysopping. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC).[reply] I don't think we exceed our authority by becoming involved in this. Usually arbcom handle wheelwar-type issues, but there's no reason to say that the community can't. I'm not fond of the perception that an emergency arbcom motion trumps a reasoned consensus of the community. AGK 12:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) Recommend unblocking Tan. A single token block for disruption is less important than a discussion relating to a user's administrator tools. Also noting that Prodego has been blocked for disruption, so there are no need for the calls for his head on a stick. AGK 12:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] As far as I can tell, User:Prodego is not blocked. While I think his actions here were quite poorly considered, I do think we have already issued too many silly blocks for one escapade. Yet another coud well lead to a very unhappy cabal, err, camel. jæs (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Prodego was blocked... by Thantalas, right after unblocking himself from Prodego's block. Another admin unblocked Prodego 3 minutes later. Prodego's block log --Enric Naval (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment Agree with unblock. Coren, as an individual member of ArbCom has no particular special powers in this area, and so we can review a block as usual. Seems no point in keeping him blocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] I can't see how Tan's comments can be seen as anything less than clear personal attacks and harassment. Tan, completely unprovoked went to another user's talk page and left the comment (to a third party) "are you fucking kidding me? You're going to be all high and mighty, threatening to "visit ANI", while chastising the user about... being civil? Get the fuck over yourself." He made several other comments to the same effect - [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]. These aren't instances of snapping when harassed, Tan deliberately went out of his way to harass and attack another user. Prodego talk 12:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] However much I believe vulgar language ought to be (and can easily be) avoided, the word fuck does not inherently make any old statement a personal attack. Calling someone a fool may be a (very mild) personal attack; saying they are acting foolishly almost certainly is not. Expressing incredulity is not a personal attack. Falling back to sarcasm is not a personal attack. Even expressing outrage is not a personal attack. Do you see the point I'm trying to make? jæs (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] On the contrary, this isn't about the use of profanity, although this helps make things a bit more obvious. (The bolding of 'fuck' wasn't my own - it was in the original message). Tan attacked another user completely unprovoked, and made several disparaging remarks towards another user in a discussion he was not involved with. This is part of a larger pattern of such behavior by Tan. I don't have a problem with Tan being unblocked in order to comment on his desysop - but I strongly stand by the interpretation of those comments as blatant personal attacks. I asked for objections before blocking both on and off wiki before making the block, and there were none. As for the goatse image, it seems I was right that it should be deleted. Prodego talk 14:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Are you open to recall? Jafeluv (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] By RfAR. Prodego talk 15:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] and you inflamed the situation by blocking an admin with no consensus. I would say the most disruptive one in the bunch was you.--Crossmr (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] There is nothing different about administrators, its just a set of tools for maintaining the site. There should be no special treatment. Prodego talk 15:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Coren specifically reduced the indef block back to the "original block" after the desysop, so I no longer consider it an Arbcom block. Since consensus above seems relatively clear, I'm going to unblock now, not as a judgment on whether the block was good or not, but because the real damage has already been done, and we might as well try to save the bits and pieces we can. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] IMO, Prodego is developing a bit of a cavalier shoot first and ask questions later attitude towards carrying out administrative actions, be it summarily deleting images without discussion or blocking other administrators for cussing. Things that simply offend one's sensibilities are not grounds for using admin tools. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think Tan was developing an approach that was not compatible with his position, and instead of being receptive to the feedback he was given (on more than one occasion) to address his approach, he chose to continue along the same path and took it too far. He knew what the consequences would be, but took the gamble anyway. Given that Tan had repeatedly dismissed the feedback and had no intention of changing his approach, the inevitable could only be put off for so long. I hardly see the usefulness in dragging this out further with excuses or justifications or attempts to reassign blame or anything else that would be punitive (including keeping him blocked). Accordingly, I endorse Floquenbeam's action of unblocking him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse already-enacted unblock, with no further comment on wrongdoings by any other editor, admin or not, in this whole mess. There's plenty of blame to go around, and as far as I am concerned, no one involved in the initial series of incidents, up to and including the various blocks, didn't get splattered with the shit that hit this fan. No one is blameless here, and as such, we should all just walk away, and do nothing further with this. Everyone should let it drop, and get back to finding a pointless bit of drama to get involved with editing articles. --Jayron32 14:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment Administrator food-fights may be entertaining, but they demean the position and wikipedia itself. You guys really need to take these kinds of issues offline. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Another concern that maybe should be addressed is what could be called "admin burnout". The two guys in this thread, I have considered both to be good admins. Does wikipedia have or need some process for dealing with this "burnout" syndrome? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Unless bringing on more admins is the solution, which I don't think the community at large is for. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not therapy. –MuZemike 16:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] (Responding to the more admins solution) Even if there were more admins, there'd still need to be a willingness AND ability on the part of the burnt out admins to "let go", "drop the stick", "move away and take a deep breath", or whatever expression fits the particular circumstances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] An editor can respond to burnout by walking away for a while. There were a lot of poor decisions made here, but Tan was no martyr. The tit-for-tat block he made himself was enough to justify losing the bit, imo, regardless of the actions of anyone else. Resolute 17:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Indeed. Furthermore, "good editors burn out sometimes" is still used far too frequently around here to excuse any bad behaviour by established / well-liked editors for periods way in excess of that permitted for the hoi polloi. This goes doubly when said editors have the mop when it really should be the inverse. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Burnout? Don’t make me laugh. Nobody forces anyone to edit here and as for at least one of the individuals involved, the liberal use of spiteful insults in an attempt to humiliate editors who dare to reproach him about his attitude is a long-standing trait, not one suddenly brought on by wiki-stress. Just because you consider someone to “be a good admin.” (i.e. you like them and you follow them about) doesn’t mean that they are suffering from burnout because once again they have allowed their arrogance to get the better of them. Leaky Caldron 17:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]