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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

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

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

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

Response by Neuromancer

I assume that I can weigh in on this conversation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, salient points:

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of Neuromancer's edits: article coincidences

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

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

Sanctions

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

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

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

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I presented my view of what happened. I presented what felt, as that is what I was asked. I was posting that in an attempt to gain a mentors, and their view of the situation. How is that "not terribly encouraging?" Neuromancer (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for myself, but I found it discouraging because your portrayal of the situation continues to be dominated by a sense of persecution, rather than humility and introspection. This doesn't bode well for an effort in which the goal is to engage more constructively with others in the future. You are an incredibly intelligent and talented editor, and it's frustrating for me to see you occupied so much of the time in conflict. -- Scray (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is canvassing:
  • 11:11, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Craftyminion ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: oops - redundant section, sorry)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:MastCell ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Scray ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:JoeSmack ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Emw ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Craftyminion ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Craftyminion ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Frmatt ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Hipocrite ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Neuromancer ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:09, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Keepcalmandcarryon ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
• Neuromancer (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not canvassing, as 2/0 explained to you here, with valid citations of applicable policy. -- Scray (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• • Thank you for acknowledging I didn't engage in the behaviours you were blocked for. I've already weighed in above. Verbal chat 20:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I think you misunderstood. I was accusing you of the actions I am being accused of. You have followed and edited other articles I have been involved with, for no other reason than I have been involved. You have elicited the assistance of others in trying to ban me. What I meant was that people NOT involved in this topic look at the situation. IE: Scray, Hipocrite, Keepcalm, JoeSmack, 2/0, TimVickers, etc. Neuromancer (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Comment Itching? if by itching you mean that I feel that by learning the proper ways in which to introduce information to WP without causing a war... Well then yes. I am itching to learn these skills. I fully realize that I have made some mistakes, and I am working on correcting those so that they are not repeated. However, banning me is just a way to exert control over a situation. Neuromancer (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment As far as my comments to a potential mentor, I told him what had happened. I was not pushing a view. I was explaining how I felt about the situation, while simultaneously acknowledging that there was an issue in my logic and requesting help to understand it. I was refusing to acknowledge anything, I was asking for assistance to better understand them. Furthermore, I do not feel that the issue is personal, nor have I ever. I feel that there is a group who does not agree with ideas that I have presented, not that they disagree with me. There is a profound difference. Neuromancer (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I see the ideal behind mentorship, but I appreciate the clarification. My question is more specific: can anyone name a disruptive editor who has been successfully mentored? Skinwalker (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clarification

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

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

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

I fail to see a single reference to a "disruptive edit" in any of the articles you have mentioned. The only "disturbing edits" existed in an article which have since been deleted. Can you show any allegedly disruptive edits to the articles you propose I should be banned from? Neuromancer (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are quoting when you say "disturbing edit" - your use of that phrase seems to be the first on this page. -- Scray (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neuromancer probably meant disruptive; he typed it correctly in the next line it seems...I think it might have been a response to JoeSmack (and the thread he cited). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and now Neuromancer has gone back and edited "disturbing" to "disruptive", making my comment appear to be a non sequitur. This is inconsistent with Talk page guidance and etiquette, but I assume this is due to lack of awareness of that guidance. -- Scray (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, horrible typos can happen too so it's not worth assuming otherwise over. When that happens, add a diff next to your comment pointing out that whomever fixed their comment or changed it since. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neuromancer, whether or not you agree with it, would you be willing to abide by the topic ban proposed? If so, my advice to you would be to develop your Wikipedia skills by editing other areas. After a time, you could appeal for the topic ban to be lifted. What do you think? Jehochman ^Talk 16:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is for a permanent, not a temporary ban. Otherwise we'd be back here with exactly the same problems. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Proofreader77

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

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

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

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

• NOTE: Banjeboi: paragraph 2

Mistaken (wasn't me)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• What came before:

Stages - how we got to here

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

• What now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tombaker321

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Objections:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since these "style" items are not even controlled on the ANI page. I believe the current measures stated to address won't be significant enough to help. I don't think the Admins see any 'acceptance' that there is a even a problem, by Proofreader77 "Seat belting them in and turning on the lights for a drunk driver, does not really minimize the risk to others" --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed the comments made by both of you in the last 24 hours; I felt it was the least disruptive way to keep this discussion on track. (As for the two earlier collapsed sections, I don't think it notably helped either party in this thread.) As for your points 2-3, please supply diffs -- or indicate where you have provided them above, since there's been a lot of text added here. As for point 4 -- if the problems can't be handled by the restrictions proposed, then we are talking about blocking him. I'd rather offer Proofreader77 a chance to solve the problem first.

Do any uninvolved Admins care to comment? Or is everyone else more interested in following the "Wikipedia forever" page banners drama? -- llywrch (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Briefly: #2 As the original poster Benjiboi said, Proofreader overwhelms the pages until its a WP:TLDR fact. Mess with pages defined as: formatting, restating others words as summaries, uber blurbage usage, etc. WP:TLDR
• #3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_6 see very bottom for CEASE usage...that tone is repeated many times elsewhere.
• Hans Adler suggested siteban, I think BOKE, and POLANSKI, THIS THREAD are strong evidence of methodology, and nothing Proofreader has offered indicates he see any issue with his methodology. Do you think Proofreader, thinks there is a problem with his editing? I don't see any acknowledgment. If he is going to change, is an open question. However, I would simply like the evidence of that to occur on anything except Polanski related pages. There are 3.
• Last comment unless requested. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Necessary FYI [19] --Tombaker321 (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Having been asked to say what I think about this, I have done, here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Request for recusal of administrator llywrch from this topic due to a previous involvement in issue with Proofreader77. While llywrch may respond that that experience provides insight for taking action now, the fact that neither she/he nor anyone else involved/present brought that matter to ANI suggests there may have been good reasons why not. The improper conflating of that old matter and this Polanski ANI topic is noted with strong objection. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put Pf77 under editing restrictions. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've come here after reading the Polanski article, and then making the mistake of checking the talk page. From some of Proofreader77's posts above (specifically this and this), it appears that that he understands full well that his communication style is problematic, but that he has no intention of addressing that, and will instead just continue wikilawyering around the content issues and the proceedings of this ANI report. I support the restrictions suggested above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requests:

1. As far as the restrictions I don't see how they will significantly stop, or slow Proofreader'ss disruptions on Polanski. He does not acknowledge the problem, and has forum shopped, and done wiki-lawyering, all in an attempt to keep his methodology. So these restrictions almost set him up to fail, because they don't conveyed to him he has a problem to fix. . With the restrictions he will be back at it on Polanski. IMO

2. Hans Alder's proposed: - - - - "Proofreader77 is not allowed to use any markup other than the most basic things such as italics, bold, lists and tables. In particular, Proofreader77 is not allowed to use colour, all caps, small caps or underlining on any wiki page outside their own user space." - - - - - was lost in the mix.

3. To give Proofreader a chance, and also for my plea for relief from his methodology. I request he be banned from edits on Roman Polanski, Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case , Roman_Polanski:_Wanted_and_Desired . I think its fair to say his has significantly disrupted the Polanski items. A simple "keep away from" condition. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tombaker321, please allow me to advise you on this. Let it go for now. This issue seems to have been presented, heard and addressed. Allow Proofreader77 the dignity to regroup and move forward from here. I'm fairly confident they heard what the core concerns were and from folks they feel compelled to at least give some heed to. If the situation devolves again, which no one wants, we can revisit to see if something else should occur. What we need to do, despite the recent history, is extend good faith that everyone involved means well and will try to work with one another. Take a break and allow things to reach a new normal so we can simply go forward. -- Banjeboi 23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Alder's proposed: - - - - "Proofreader77 is not allowed to use any markup other than the most basic things such as italics, bold, lists and tables. In particular, Proofreader77 is not allowed to use colour, all caps, small caps or underlining on any wiki page outside their own user space." - - - - - was lost in the mix.

Reading this, give me great faith the problem is not resolved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Loan_me_a_besom_:.29 (Since I am targeted within his response, which is only justification etc.) If Hans Alder's recommendation is not used, and this becomes resolved at this point I will deal with it.

--Tombaker321 (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked; request for unblock granted.

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

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

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

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

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

One would think that this is a simple and uncontroversial statement of basic policy, but User:Likebox cannot abide it, since it contradicts his own preference to be allowed to introduce OR. Thus he has reverted it out of the failed guideline/essay 3 times[20][21][22] in just over four hours. I noted on his talk page that I considered his behavior in violation of his restriction, and requested he revert himself or I would request administrative action. He rejected my statements, removed my post from his talk page, and told me not to post messages to him any more (as far as I know that was my first and only post on his User talk: page). I'd appreciate it if uninvolved admins could discuss this issue. I'd also appreciate it if his fellow ESCA creators User:Count Iblis, User:Michael C Price, and recently blocked User:Brews ohare could stay out of the discussion, since I'm looking specifically for the views of outside admins, rather than entirely predictable support from like-minded collaborators. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oddly enough, the people currently edit-warring over the failed proposal appear to be Michael C Price and you.[23][24][25][26] Go figure. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

My attempt to keep Jayjg to stick to politics has failed Count Iblis (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2054 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

VK is getting blocked so often these days he hardly has time to update his little counter! [27]. MickMacNee (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'd note that both Domer and Mooretwin, aware of the 1RR on the article, simply made sure their reverts were spaced at least 24 hours apart, and continued to edit war with each other [28]. Which is exactly what the ArbCom remedies were supposed to prevent. If editors game the system to evade general restrictions, there is little option but to add specific restrictions. When you consider how many fronts this same sort of problem editing is occurring on from some of the same editors, I can't really see any other option. Elonka fits the definition of the ArbCom remedy as an uninvolved administrator, therefore I see no basis to discount her probationary measure. I'd also note that this pattern is depressingly familiar. Every single time an uninvolved admin makes a sanction on one of them, the same invested group of editors claim bias and insist that admin is involved. It happened to me (Rockpocket (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)), to Tyrenius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), to Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)... Either the entire admin corps is involved in a grand Anti-Irish conspiracy or else we have to begin to see this tactic for what it is. Rockpocket 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More bad block, bans and probation

I was recently page banned here on a very dubious pretence by Angusmclellan. Their ability to this was questioned and it was pointed out to them that they were in the wrong here,here. Because I would not accept their improper ban, I was blocked by them, but this was immediately overturned here because it was wrong. This was then followed up with my being place on probation here all of which is related to the above?

I’d now like both of these actions addressed and removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment here may be agreement to drop their baseless ban? It may need to be clarified. If this is the case it needs to logged. This would just leave the probation to be addressed.--Domer48_'fenian' 10:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Peter Hart article, and indeed pretty much any article related to The Troubles is under an arbcom restriction as noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. You have been clearly edit warring at that article, which means your own actions have made yourself under the jurisdiction of that arbcom case. I see no admin that has acted inappropriate in enforcing the above arbcom ruling. --Jayron32 15:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide the Diff's to support your claim. Thanks--Domer48_'fenian' 15:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[29] shows troublesome exchanges where you have made several different attempts to work contested material into the article in question. On September 5, on September 8, November 2, and November 9 you made repeated attempts to make contested changes to the article in question. The probation placed on you seems necessary to stop you from continuing to do this. --Jayron32 16:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend merging this thread up to be a sub-section of the "#Request for more eyes on a volatile situation regarding The Troubles" where this is already being discussed. --Elonka 00:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(followup) Merged. --Elonka 05:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block Vintagekits indefinitely

I may be one of the few left who hasn't participated in this discussion (or what has led up to it), so I am, as stated by LessHeard vanU, going to grasp this nettle. This issue is not going to be resolved here, and while I note Georgewilliamherbert's request for the discussion to continue longer and believe this request to be in the best of good faith, I do not believe that continuation here will generate any more light or any less heat.

There is clearly not consensus to reverse the block on Vintagekits. At this point, it seems that Vintagekits has exhausted the patience of a good portion of the community. He may, as normal, appeal to the arbitration committee regarding the sanctions imposed. If he would like to put together an appeal on his talk page, I will move it to the arbitration requests section.

While I would like to say that this is the end of the issue, I unfortunately cannot do so. This issue was a real world conflict that caused a great deal of suffering for everyone involved. The real tragedy here is that we have an article on The Troubles to write at all. But we do—and the importance of such historical records cannot be overstated. It is my hope that everyone involved here can set aside their differences, and create a neutral and accurate record of what has transpired. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Troubles case has been amended before via community discussion, such as in October 2008[36] and October-November 2009.[37] Now, I'd like to propose one more amendment, as follows (this is mostly copy/paste from other discretionary sanction cases):

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

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

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

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

• Support Discretionary sanctions have worked well in other contentious areas. It should work fine in this one too. NW (Talk) 05:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we drop the "or normal editorial process" part? It's a problematic (and cloudy) expression. The most recently closed case adopted a "or decorum" provision instead. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds reasonable. I have no objection. --Elonka 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tweaked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support formally now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose; it is unreasonable to expect uninvolved admins to sanction misconduct in this area or uninvolved users to spend any time attempting to resolve it further. It's ArbCom they want; let them have it then. No need to continue to force the community into this impossible situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds good. Rockpocket 06:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --John (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A necessary tool for intractable disputes.   Will Beback  talk  08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support we need something without any question. However we have people gaming the 1RR system by making multiple different POV changes to different parts of an article that should be reverted, but given the 1RR restriction on an article as a whole any editor taking action risks sanction. We also have editors such as Irvine22 who are regularly banned for varying periods and then simply come back and start again, but move over many articles to do with the Troubles making POV edits, interspersed with reasonable or marginal ones. Any uninvolved admin, unaware of the total pattern of edits might interpret action against such editors on a single article as disruptive. We've also seen confusion over what is or is not a good faith edit with consequent issues over if reversion is legitimate, or if the edit should be amended for a compromise. Sorry to go on a bit, but for something to really work here the "uninvolved" admins are going to have to do some detective work rather than just react to an individual article and the need for that is not clear in the above draft. --Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Totally oppose - this merely extends the arbitrary powers of Admins who overwhelmingly come from one side of this "cultural" dispute. The wording is so vague it is a charter for the multitude of editors conditioned by Anglo-pov to impose their perspective even further on Irish editors. Sarah777 (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I think a few good Irish admins from a range of backgrounds and perspectives would be a good idea. Also, some British specialists in the area would be most welcome - the Brits have been refereeing this thing in R/T for years after all. They'd probably have to be public school/Oxbridge types, who may be available these days with all the problems in the City. But seriously: the problem with Irish/Troubles issues is that they are simply beyond the ken of most normal, good-faith editors, including admins. You need to be steeped in it. There's a "dog whistle" aspect to this, in that there is a range of seemingly simple words - and it may often be just a single word - that a knowledgable editor may drop into an article or discussion and cause a disproportionate eruption of outrage by other editors who can pick up the dog whistle. For those without dog ears, the resulting hubbub seems utterly disproportionate and inexplicable. I think if you made, say, myself and BigDunc admins for Troubles-area articles, and nether of us could edit in the area, and neither of us could use tools without the other's agreement, you might have something workable., A bit like the d'hondt structures at Stormont really. And they work just so well, don't they? Irvine22 (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Support, per current standard practice in other similar cases. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Good rationale by LHvU. This dispute is in too many people's DNA - unless we can get some admins from Mars, it's never going to have the appearance of unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 23:25, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
• Support The alternative is relying on an outdated reference to WP:Probation. If WP:AE is going to be forced to do his, we need as many tools as possible. You don't like it? Give us some community support.--Tznkai (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's probably the bottom line; if we as admins are expected to deal with this crap (and I accept that it is part of the job description), we want to know that we have the support and means to do so. I further think that some commenters are perhaps worrying far too much about the bias issue; more admin eyes on the situation will act to counter rather than reinforce bias, and we all know that no matter what happens and how much process we follow for the sake of propriety, we're still going to hear accusations of bias. It's just par for the course, but saying so doesn't make it so. Don't let's miss this opportunity because of analysis paralysis. EyeSerene^talk 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I'll be posting a report later. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think there have been enough problems in this area to justify the extra oversight. Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think, though we need to think seriously about safeguards for bullying. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Discretionary sanctions can lead to selective enforcement. I'd rather see a sequence of RfC/U's on the most egregious edit warriors on both sides of the conflict. We remove troublesome editors one by one until proper editing conditions are established. If there has been an RfC/U to document problematic editing, the closing administrator should be able to place an appropriate community sanction. Consensus for a community sanction can be established at RfC/U the same as at ANI. The difference is that RfC/U is more thorough and allows more time for thoughtful consideration. ANI regrettably turns into ochlocracy. A rushed, emotional judgment of a complex matter is not good. Jehochman ^Talk 06:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The potential for 'mission creep', to expand many Ireland-related articles (where there may be 'normal' disruptive editing) by classifying them as 'Troubles -related', is unacceptably high. Such special restrictions discourage bona fide editors from participating. RashersTierney (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus

I'm rather surprised this hasn't been closed as "no consensus". Is that related to the fact that most of the Admins here are one one side of the argument? Surely not? Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence was sufficient and constructive, and I happen to agree. But the remainder, much like some of your other comments in these discussions, has been unhelpfully inflammatory - it needs to stop, and I'm quite surprised at the community's reluctance to deal with it on the spot. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, because it would be an example of the use of discretionary sanctions - for which there is no consensus, as indicated above?

It is also a good example of why sanctioning less than optimal conduct during procedure discussions makes for bad decisions; the people sent to the "naughty corner" have their input removed (and why there have been cases of attempted baiting of opposing view holders or allegations of improper language to have them so removed), and are not then - and certainly don't feel themselves - part of the consensus. Thus the cycle restarts, with the added problem of "extensive block logs" being of themselves used as grounds to reduce the arguments being used - which in turn leads to expressions of frustration, resulting in calls for sanctions. It is a tough job to manage these kinds of discussions, and I have been reasonably relieved that calls for warnings and blocks of certain respondents by certain parties have been absent in the Vk discussions. If we are able to discern the premise of the rationales being presented and ignore the noise of the manner in which they are presented then there remains a chance that there can be agreement reached.

Thus endeth the lesson. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate (and have appreciated) that these sorts of disputes can lead to users making a lot of noise in frustration. That said, community patience is not infinite; if my comment is not an indication of that, consider the outcome of the above topic ban and mentorship proposals. Adopting the position you've just stated for too long has effects of its own. My comment was just a hint that the level of adherance (or the lack thereof) to expected standards of behavior and decorum by some users is declining or staying at the same unfortunate level. In other words, for that to gradually improve, my comment invites admins to do their jobs (or other users to help out), with or without tools, on or off wiki, before it's too late (or beyond the point of return). Anyway, it makes me even more glad that I'm away from this topic area normally. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised this hasn't been closed as "no consensus". Is that related to the fact that most of the Admins here are on one side of the argument? Surely not? vs. Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas. (referring to several Irish editors, by Angus above): which is more inflammatory, and whose "level of adherence (or lack thereof)" to decorum and is a more likely candidate to be "dealt with on the spot", that's subject to prejudices and interpretations. I'll repeat Sarah's sentiment, this discussion was closed[38] before a plea to keep it open was made; it should have stayed closed as "no consensus". Now instead it is resurrected and masquerading as a new thread. If not for the edit summaries, this would have the appearance of being a normal state of affairs to the uninvolved observer. Admins did this manipulation of the topics and archiving, and I echo a call to question such actions. Something inflammatory about that? Sswonk (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, self-proclaimed Irish & British editors should be 'restricted' from those Trouble-related articles. Let the outsiders handle editing those articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

 – Awaiting uninvolved input

I brought Hippo43 here before for his constant watching over me and interfering and disruption to places I contribute. Now I caught him basically admitting that he watches my talk page and that he came to a place I contribute to because of he found it on my talk page. For quite awhile Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines I have been working on changing the guideline to reflect that bold and italics are not shouting and do have good purpose if used correctly; I felt the original wording to be overkill (and regardless of everyone making it about capitals I never had an opinion on that, I cared about bold and italics). From day one I was clear the reason I wanted the change was that I had recently been told that using bold and italics was "shouting", something I do feel is tweenish and teenagerish (as do alot of internet users my age). During a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means I had the caps lock on during typing for work, came back to the internet and wrote my edit summary, accidently having my edit summary in caps; not intentionally to make a point. A non-involved person "warned" me about it on my talk page. Less than five minutes later Hippo43 showed up at that policy talk page for the first time at the guideline talk page and started supporting the "status quo" side, then showed up at the "talk page guidelines" guideline and stated that I wanted to change it only because I was just warned about using caps as yelling; which he probably didnt notice that I'd started that discussion long before, when I was accused elsewhere of "yelling" when using an occasional word in bold, which is my style. This shows that he's been watching my talk page and goes around to different locations that I'm involved with for the express purpose of frustrating me; this is the very definition of hounding and is unacceptable; he had never been active in either discussion and then suddenly shows up only after noticing something on my talk page!

Now to make it clear to everone I am not talking about just this one incident! There was confusion last time I brought Hippo here. Last time I took Hippo here my case was thrown out as most of you looked only at that one case, and declared in his favor due to the circumstances and threw in as support for his side the fact that Albany, New York had a "may be too long" template. I did some editing to that article, and looked into the policy/guidelines about that issue, removed the template per Village Pump discussion in which the only two who responded agreed that the template wasnt required for Albany. Hippo of course reverted my removal. Luckily an admin and at least two or three other editors on the talk page were able to revert Hippo and give me a consensus on keeping it off.

This all started with Siena College and a dispute over whether it is in Loudonville or Newtonville (consensus of editors has always been that it is not clear and both may be mentioned. Hippo dissented saying "only consensus of sources matter, not editors") from there because many editors pointed out Loudonville is a hamlet not a town as he tried to write into the Siena College artricle he attempted at the Loudonville, New York page to say "it is a town unless you can show a source that specifically states it is not a town. Again consensus of editors told him NO. Then he moved on to Administrative divisions of New York, where he has continued to harrass my contributions. Anything that puts his "viewpoints" in past arguments in jeopardy and make me look right automatically brings him. Now any discussion I am in that in "his opinion" Im doing something wrong he shows up. I will not be wikistalked, and dont need to be "watched" by anyone, especially not him.

I know this is long, but this has been going on for over a year, I'm fed up with it; he's won arguments simply based on people not wanting to "fight" him again. I hate to bring them into this and hope they arent upset by it, but asking the following users about the issue at Siena College/Loudonville/Newtonville might be helpful in this- User:UpstateNYer, User:Juliancolton, User:Doncram, and User:Daniel Case; for the Albany too long template case- User:ZooFari, User:AFriedman, and UpstateNYer. I request that we each be banned from contact with each other. I have worked hard on working and IMPROVING and constructive edits at Capital District related articles within Capital District Wikiproject where as Hippo's only "contributions" to those articles have been to disrupt and attack mine. I have lots of flaws, I'm agressive and abrassive; but that shouldnt allow Hippo to think he has a right to "supervise" me and frustrate anything I work on that he doesnt agree with.Camelbinky (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the relevant policy I bring this under is WP:HOUND which states- "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I believe it is clear that this is what Hippo's intentions are.Camelbinky (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that Camelbinky (talk · contribs) has only edited Hippo43 (talk · contribs)'s talk page to inform him/her of this discussion. That seems like the place to start. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - since Since April. Toddst1 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand Toddst1, you want me to continue to have a dialogue with someone who has failed to listen everytime I have asked him to stop this? Have you bothered you to read his archives on his talk page or the history, or the talk page discussions at the articles I listed? I'm confused as to what you wanted me to do regarding his talk page. I've asked him not to edit the articles I work on, he accuses me then of "ownership". I've asked him to stop what he does. He wont. This isnt the first time I've asked him. This has been over a year this is going on. I've been in discussions with him. Contact some of the users I mentioned. Could you clarify what I did wrong. I want this resolved but if I'm doing something wrong please tell me. Your post was a bit cryptic for me.Camelbinky (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed plenty of discussion in Hippo's talk page archives. I'm sure Toddst1 just overlooked that. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I've done some cursory checking and found that stalking is a possibility here, but I'll leave it up to better and more diligent people than I to make a determination; I'd also like to hear from Hippo43 before saying anything definitive. On Camelbinky's request that the user's be "banned from contact with each other", I'm not sure how that would work, unless you were both topic-banned from the pages where these disputes have arisen, and I don't see that happening. All I can see coming of this is a stern warning and administrative scrutiny over Hippo's future contributions, if it is determined that there was a violation. That's not say we shouldn't discuss it here -- I do think we should -- but the resolution you've suggested doesn't seem feasible. Equazcion (talk) 23:40, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)