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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline: conduct problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of article content and edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

Resolved

 – User unblocked, see WP:RFCN if anyone still has a problem with the username. –xeno^talk 13:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jacknipples, who has made no contributions that I can view, has been blocked for violation of username policy. Didn't we just have this conversation? No, I haven't discussed this with the blocking admin because it will just be a different one next week unless do something to deal with overzealous admins at WP:UAA. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about this discussion. No, really. ;) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You needed to get this off your chest. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC with yet another baaaad baseball bugs pun) What we need is an overhaul of the username policy such that we explicitly state that ONLY usernames which are patently offensive or disruptive ("swear words" of the Seven dirty words variety, racial or ethnic slurs, stuff like that) can be blocked on sight. Which is not to state that other usernames should NOT be blocked, however a slower process, involving discussion with the user and use of WP:RFCU should occur before ANY other username should be blocked. Spammers should be blocked for spamming, not their username. Vandals should be blocked for vandalism, not their username. Blocking usernames of themselves is rarely a good idea, except in the most eggregious cases. We need to make this explicit in the blocking and/or username policy. --Jayron32 05:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this problem be as obvious if it was warmer outside? Frmatt (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three points to ponder:

• This is a different blocking administrator (likely unaware of the recent discussion), indicating consensus to enforce existing policy regarding the deprecation of borderline usernames.
• The past discussion was focused primarily on the hard/soft block distinction, not the block itself, which clearly upheld aforementioned existing policy.
• Various discussion regarding the previous block is ongoing (including a soon-to-be declined RfAR)

The bottom line is that blocking these questionable usernames is a policy. Policies are only changed with widespread consensus, which did not exist in the previous discussion. Sudden objections to long-standing practice belongs on the policy talk page, not on AN/I. —Finn Casey * * * 05:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum in re policy: This is not a question of silly prudishness. It is a matter of balancing avoiding censorship with avoiding needlessly offensive terms (even if they aren't offensive to most people). The existing balance will not change without appropriate and measured discussion, and AN/I is not the best place for such policy discussion. —Finn Casey * * * 05:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finn expresses my thoughts exactly. The block was well within policy, and it was done as a softblock, so I don't see an issue. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. Policy is clear - you talk to the editor first, before blocking. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: policy is clear, and this was within policy regardless of whether you think it was or not. You're welcome to propose new wording which makes things more the way you see them, but stating this action was not within policy is completely false. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would find myself very surprised if the username policy was clear in favor of blocking over the word "nipple". Care to be more specific about where you found that in the policy? rspεεr (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c times 4!!!!) Thank you for the comments Finn...I hope that there is continued conversation as I'm finding myself agreeing that there needs to be some change in the enforcement here...even though I don't like the username, I'm not sure it breaks the policy. Frmatt (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the semi-serious side, I would still like to see what quality of edits (if any) an editor with a name like that would do. My guess is that it's some bored high schooler in study hall, creating that name just to see if he could get away with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't know if 2 or 3 blocked nipples counts as consensus. There's no telling how many nipples have slipped through. We only see the negative feedback, so to speak. If there are a majority of admins who think nipples shouldn't be blocked, we wouldn't really be aware of that from such evidence. Not to mention, the decision isn't solely theirs. I think blocks are relatively serious, and shouldn't be imposed based on the feelings of whichever admin happens upon the username. This is one issue where I think consensus should be established beforehand, rather than relying on evidence of practice, because in the meantime, people could be getting blocked according to a policy that for all we know won't actually gain consensus in the end. And blocking is not so easily undone, as far as actually getting editors to return. Equazcion (talk) 05:15, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Good points, and I agree that it is important to be sensitive to overuse of the block tool. I was merely intending to convey that it is my understanding that the current username policy strongly discourages the creation of borderline accounts like this, and that policy has been "established beforehand" with demonstrated consensus for many years. Presumably this policy was created partially to avoid offending the more prudish (or culturally diverse) users, as well as typical behavior patterns, per Baseball Bugs. All-in-all, perhaps the issue is not really worth the effort we spend discussing it :) —Finn Casey * * * 05:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would posit, rather, that the current practices of enforcing the username policy are spotty enough that this issue shows up on a noticeboard somewhere more than once a week, and often raised by many different users. It seems clear that there is a problem with the enforcement of the username policy, and the complaints always seems to be about the overuse of "instantly blocking usernames". Its a significant problem, and a formal discussion needs to happen somewhere about this. I will agree that this board is not the place for such a substantive discussion, but anyone that has been following the admin boards for more than a few months will note that this is a real problem that needs a real discussion. --Jayron32 05:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the question is... Do we allow nipple-slips? Or should it be a stiff policy that leaves them in the cold? I'm sure either way it can be twisted, and some admin looks like a boob. -- Atama頭 06:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not keeping abreast of this issue. To me, "nipples" might be one of those borderline ones - I mean that the name cannot be kept, but I would give the user a brief period to change it, and not autoblock on sight. Although, come to think of it, this specific username may be a shortened version of "I Saw What's-her-name-Jackson's nipples at the Superbowl", which might be a WP:BLP issue :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a user JackNipples who has made 200 gnome like minor edits. All spelling grammar fixes. No one has said anything about their username, a few people have thanked them for a spelling fix. Do you really want to block that user? Why? Why is having "nipple" in your name a problem when we have "cunt" on the front page? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - what's the problem here? How is this any different from Jackfoot? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a bored high schooler bother creating a user ID named Jackfoot? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You block people with bad behaviour for that bad behaviour. A user with no edits has no bad behaviour -unless the username is so offensive as to be instantly blockable- that they can be judged on. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing a deliberately provocative nickname IS bad behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what's provocative about the world nipple? If he was calling himself cuntfister or something I can understand but a name like above needs some behaviour evidence before blocking. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since you were in high school, hasn't it. Still, borderline names like this one should be given a day or so to see if they actually do anything. My money's on someone just creating it to see if they could get away with it, and not necessarily intending to do any editing at all. Give it a day, then bounce it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A deliberately provocative name is "KillAllKikes" or "NiggersMustDie". "HeyBoobs" is silly, not provocative. And if it really is borderline, (I don't think so, but I'm prepared to accept consensus) admins should talk to the user first before blocking. As I've said before, a combination borderline name and poor edits is very different from a borderline name and no edits or good edits. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A similar case would be LadiesPrivates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The difference is that that one started editing right away and has done nothing but trolling (probably yet another Lightcurrent sock). But letting it edit for a little while, on a borderline case, at least removes all doubt that they're up to no good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I was talking to my wife about this and we came to the conclusion that the problem is that there is no definate policy as to what is and what is not appropriate. Obviously a username like "massive-throbbing-man-organ" or "foot-in-the-ass" is going to be unacceptable by any standards, but where do we draw the line? Is it right that you can see more nipples in the tabloid press than in the new user log? I have "hands" and "heart" in my username but these are all body parts that even Mary Whitehouse^[who?] would approve of unless they were used in some kind of disgusting act of depravity. My wife is of the opinion that a nipple is not offensive in itself - and I certainly don't find them offensive! What about a username like "loveflute"? It could be a crude piece of slang for the male scimitar, but on the other hand could be a user who enjoys playing the flute. I think unless there is a seriously troubling sexname, the policy should not be to block on sight, but to engage with the user and ask them why they choose such a name. I do see Bugsy's point that a name like this may be unlikely to bring us positive contributions, but I think it's worth giving them a chance, and if the mention of "nipple" in a username causes an administrator to turn pale and start to shudder, then perhaps they should pass it on to someone who is less likely to be upset and have a reaction about it to deal with it in a cool and refreshed manner. On that note, I have a cool and refreshing can of Heineken in the fridge to open, so I shall leave you. All the best, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that FootInTheAss would be a blockable username, since Ass isn't generally considered offensive as such. We have, for example, a user named Metalintheass (which I believe is the name of a Metallica album) among others. Give my best to the wife. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instant blocking of all "Nipple" account would have meant the blocking of User:NipplesMeCool (seems like a useful gnome, no deleted contribs, no talk page warnings, plenty of contributions); User:Nippled (three deleted edits from a hoax article, but also a number of decent stub creations, since redirected to a larger topic), User:Rubber Nipple Salesman (over a hundred edits in one-and-a-half year, no warnings or deleted contribs), and User:Chaotic nipple. Users who haven't got the chance to edit at all before being hard-or softblocked include User:Nipples123 and User:Nipplez. The first four seem to indicate that the idea that "nipplename = vandaluser" is incorrect quite regularly. Fram (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FootInTheAss would be blocked pretty quickly. Judging by the response of some people it'd be a hard block too. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ob trivia) Does anyone here except me remember that this policy was established precisely due to someone who selected a username that was quite similar to "massive-throbbing-man-organ"? On the other hand, around the same time we also lost a positive contributor who unfortunately selected the username "Mydogategodshat"; people couldn't get their head around the fact that it was intended simply as a bit of light-hearted silliness. -- llywrch (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are milking this for all it's worth. Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note to you guys who say that these type of words are not offensive—we have to consider all cultures, religions etc, that our readers and editors are from, when coming to a decision like that. For example, it may be quite normal in the western world, but I think it would be considered quite offensive in some asian countries. Therefore, we should keep in mind "I don't think it is offensive" is not an argument that is valid for everybody. I know wikipedia is not censored, but we should also try to understand how a person with that kind of cultural background would feel when they encounter someone with a username like that. I'm not either supporting or opposing this particular block, but I think this should be considered. It's not really fair to expect others to take it the same way we would, is it? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rubbish, wikipedia would look completely different if we ever did that. We have never done that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above comment's characterization as "rubbish". Chamal offers a very well thought-out comment that appreciates the diversity of contributors to Wikipedia. —Finn Casey * * * 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if we blocked any username offensive to any culture, that'd be pretty restrictive. We'd have to do research for every name, and block names like "Hamburger32" and "KeepsShoesOnInYourHouse". I'd go the other direction -- While those wishing to participate should expect common courtesy, Wikipedia is a large and diverse community, and can not be expected to conform to the cultural ideals and intricacies of any individual. Or something like that. Perhaps add a nipple pun somewhere in there to drive the point home. Equazcion (talk) 17:03, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Chamal, I think I understand what you're trying to get across, but that's not what's coming out. In essence, you're suggesting that a) We should modify material and content so as not to possibly offend anybody, b) We should consider the possibility that material could be offensive to some people and allow that to influence decisions and discussions, and c) We as editors should act not according to our own feelings and opinions, but according to the feelings we perceive would be felt by those we have never met.

I know that's not what you're thinking, but that's how it translates. I hate it when I get an idea that I cannot communicate to other people, except in a way that would give the wrong impression. But that's what it boils down to. A little insignificant ^{Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH!} 17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the point being made involves the distinction between article space and user/wikipedia space. Nobody is arguing for article censorship. However, it is appropriate, per Chamal, to consider reducing potentially offensive terms in user and project space. The reasoning is as follows: If a culturally diverse user is bothered by certain topics, they should refrain from editing those articles (e.g. the one on nipples). But they shouldn't have the offensive terms forced upon them by the proliferation of potentially offensive usernames. For example, perhaps a young or culturally diverse editor wishes to edit the Disneyland article. Should they be forced to see obscenities in usernames? Perhaps that clarifies the point a bit. —Finn Casey * * * 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Two things: What society or culture on earth is so sexually repressed that the mere presence of the word "nipple" would send them running for cover, to the point where it should be verboten anywhere outside of the article on nipples? Also, above someone mentioned the previous incident was heading for ArbCom. Is it really? As someone directly involved in it, I hadn't been notified. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost the silliest discussion I have come across on WP. What if the person's name is "Nipples" [22]? And even if it isn't his name, it is a legitimate surname. Bielle (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you continue to "allow" usernames that clearly offend some people, you will keep getting stuff like this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious issues with usernames with this disgusting reference in them. These lavatorial and highly offensive references to prostitution should be forbidden here.I think usernames with this clearly offensive term should all be either hardblocked or sent to WP:CHU ... don't you? - Alison ^❤ 08:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC) (you get the idea!)[reply]

Does this mean we now have to block the House minority leader twice?? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be a boner. Jehochman ^Talk 08:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges comparison. If you ask someone on the street about John, they'll tell you it's a name. If you ask someone about nipples... they'll probably think about something perverted. Okay, I suppose depending on the gender, but still... --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, I think this says more about you than anything else. It doesn't mean anything remotely perverted to me. I mean, we all have the things; males and females. Seriously - this is a huuuge to-do about nothing - Alison ^❤ 08:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about User:PorkLover, or User:MmmDogMeat? Should we block them as offensive to some people? I think it is silly to block usernames unless the user's behavior corroborates bad faith, or unless the name is patently offensive, not just mildly offensive nor potentially offensive to some. Using the prior two examples, those usernames should be acceptable, but not if User:PorkLover is baiting other editors on articles about Islam, nor if User:MmmDogMeat goes to Vegitarianism and starts adding {{fact}} tags to every other sentence. Usernames need to be judged in context of what they are doing. The guiding policy is Assume Good Faith, at least until you have evidence to the contrary. Jehochman ^Talk 08:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of the most sensible statements of the thread. When a vandal writes dickdickdickdickdick on an article, we assume good faith to the point of letting him do it up to five times before he's blocked. When a spammer tries to advertise their favorite band by putting up a blatant advertisement, we let him recreate it still several times before he's blocked. There's no reason to throw AGF out the window just because it's a username. Really, we wouldn't even instablock for replacing Jesus' page with I LOVE NIPPLES. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, about the band thing? No, you're wrong. When someone with the wrong username tries to create an article about their band, (or their company, or the government department they're part of) they'll get hardblocked (account creation disabled) pretty quick, no warnings, no intro to COI, no discussion. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about his username. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not understand all this umbrage and hand-wringing over the humble nipple. I am begining to wonder if Wikipedia is not populated by prudes and religious bluenoses. In my opinion nipples are fine anatomical structures and nothing to be offended by or ashamed of. I myself am the proud owner of three of the charming little chaps. Crafty (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lily Allen, is that you?? - Alison ^❤ 08:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know it, kid. I am the triple breasted whore-monger of abomination. ;) Crafty (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a good thing that the Yankees are in the World Series, or else we would be seeing a lot of Baltimore Aureolas ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters. It makes sense to me that a user should be judged and acted upon based on their edits before their username. If User:BIGBOOBS is a vandal, they should be blocked. If User:BIGBOOBS is a constructive contributor, they should be welcomed, and if maybe they can be asked to change their username if the community has a problem with it. My point is, no user should be blocked before they edit except in extreme cases, and the username in question, User:Jacknipples, was a borderline case. A little insignificant ^{Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH!} 11:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree. If your real name is Timothy Dick, then it's not your fault if people do not take you seriously. Wikipedia is a serious project. We get to choose our usernames. How seriously will people take your contributions if you choose a name such as User:12inchRooster? Maybe the Uncyclopedia would prefer humourous nicks, but they have a different goal. If I'm editing a serious article, why the heck would I want to be distracted by User:HumungousHooters?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a severe problem I have with that approach, and here's why.

Which option is more constructive: taking the time to explain to a new user that you appreciate their work and effort and asking them to change this one thing, or instantly blocking them, alienating a constructive and possibly valuable editor and antagonizing the community in their eyes?

Assuming that an editor is not needed and the wiki can deal without them says something worse than an an assumption of bad faith. With the exception of real, honest-to-goodness vandals, users should be given the chance to contribute and improve, instead of being bitten by admins who "can't be distracted by this sort of thing". A little insignificant ^{Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH!} 12:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and at that you need to go back to my very first post in this thread: we should not block for the minor/borderline ones, we ask them to change the nick. That's not biting, it's nudging. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that will indeed cost you. Please deposit 25 cents in any convenient slot on your computer. Then ask yourself this: What is the probability of a user who purposely chooses such a stupid ID, actually contributing something useful? Although, I say again, with a borderline case like this, they should be given a short period of time to demonstrate that they are not just bored teenagers in study hall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going round in circles here. I just went out and had a chat with my wife (she's doing the gardening at the moment), and brought her a nice cup of tea. We drank our tea and smoked our cigarettes, and what we figured out is that there's a clear consensus that it's not appropriate to block someone before looking at their contributions, especially if it's a borderline case like "jacknipples" - which doesn't sound much more offensive than existing users "metalintheass" and valued contributer "nipplesmecool". She thought it's fair enough to block a properly offensive account, like "I'm_gonna_fist_you_Jimbo" or something like that, as not only is this a surprising declaration of intent, it's obviously offensive. I think we can run the risk of letting captain nipple make some edits - and no offense, bugsy, but I don't think it's a question of "a short period of time". How many of the people monitoring the "user creation log" are easily offended? The main issue that should be taken into account is - is this user making a positive contribution? If so, then jolly good (& discuss username later if appropriate), or are they a troll? If so, then their risque name makes them easier to spot. It'd be a shame to drive off contributors just because they might choose a funny name. Yours, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with the tea-drinking wife; this should be made more clear on the policy, that when in doubt, do not block and the offensive name must be egregiously offensive. Otherwise, a little discussion and patience are well merited. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give them a little bit of rope (or clamps) to hang themselves before zapping. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I wouldn't take "I'm gonna fist you Jimbo" being blocked lying down. Thats where this conversation takes an uncomfortable turn. Next thing you know, people will be sticking their fingers in all sorts of places where they don't belong. Syrthiss (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much mental imagery in that statement for this time of day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm gonna fist you Jimbo" in an extreme case. But it borderline cases, I think there's a possibility that when choosing a username some new users will not make their decision keeping in mind how their username will affect their interactions with other editors. A little insignificant ^{Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH!} 14:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad this matter has been marked "Resolved". When a thread on AN/I starts discussing Jimmy Wales' sex life, about the only rational thing left worth saying is "I must have missed the part where someone started talking about the Nazis." -- llywrch (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked: "Don't be stupid, be a smarty / Come and join the Nazi Party." >:#) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago, we closed the discussion on this noticeboard regarding the POV tag at English Defence League diff. I laid out concerns that should be addressed on the talk page. Editors are still preventing inclusion of the tag. The recent edit summary was actually offensive "BNP/EDL supporters will never accept that the article is NPOV". I'm from Seattle and could care less what the group does but it looks like POV from editors who are entrenched in their beliefs has skewed the article to the point that negative media accounts about the group are more neutral than the article. Before, I was told to include reasoning for the tag. I have now done so and it is still not sufficient. There have been ongoing disputes but the editors that stick around more are influencing content. I don't even attempt to edit the mainspace since the last time resulted in a pretty swift revert and an editor had the audacity to tell editors to stop editing the page until it was discussed further (even though he has been a driving force in what I consider the POV problems). I also tried a POV-check tag before to see if was completely wrong but that was not acceptable. What is the next step?Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After repeated requests the above editor finally produced reasons to justify their NPOV tag. Those points have either been addressed by other editors, are not NPOV argument, or do not have agreement from other editors. All within 24 hours. At this stage the media accounts are the only reliable third part sources. We now seem to have the common problem on controversial current news articles in which anything negative about the group (in this case EDL) is qualified, compromised or tagged. When that fails ANI or other notice boards are used. Regardless of location or intent, Cptnono has de facto being attempting to structure the article towards the PR position taken by supporters of EDL. Its not surprising that persistent (and largely isolated) assertion of this position is producing a reaction from editors with a history of monitoring far-right sites in the UK. --Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is a content dispute, and the editor had been told previously that WP:NPOVN might be a more appropriate venue, if they actually waited for some discussion. Most of his points had already been addressed or were minor, such as slight rewordings or wanting to remove "far right" (this is well supported by exponential WP:RS). The next step would be to read WP:NPOV and realise that the article should not present the minority position of the EDL as fact - wikipedia is not an extension of their website. Verbal chat 06:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not OK that the tag is being removed without fully addressing the dispute. It needs to be returned until the content is fixed. And yes, I am editing in a way that looks pro-EDL. This isn't because I like them it is because I am trying to fix the horribly unneuteral and information used out of context. I am asking you to stop alleging that I am pro-EDL. I have offered one example of an edit that was anti-EDL. I also provided a reference on the talk page when an editor disputed a line criticizing the group. I am not on a side.Cptnono (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of sides, a few editors at EDL watch and have commented at the BNP page. I have read about EDL for a couple months in the news but BNP was completely new to me when commenting. I made a list after reading the article and seeing Talk:British National Party#POV?. I would love to hear feedback over there. I guess you could argue that I have pointed out neutrality issues on both articles but my only response would be that they should not have become the messes they are in the first place. I know you guys really don't like them but it doesn't mean we should be writing rap sheets.Cptnono (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of websites, major British press provide the required commentary and we don't need either groups sites if they are unduly self-serving.Cptnono (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors who was originally on the "wrong side" of this argument, and having raised an ANI about editing behavior last week, I want to chip in my opinions. I am not a technical expert in NPOV. I live in England, follow media coverage and know what I think about EDL. I have spent many hours replacing unsatisfactory sources for the assertion that EDL is "political" and based on that a consensus was reached between some of the protagonists here, namely Snowded and Verbal on that particular aspect. I would add here that I do not see EDL as overtly political, but with a reliable source finally mentioning the word directly in the context of EDL a consensus on the opening sentence was finally agreed. I have committed probably 50 edits over the last few days improving links, tidying structure etc. and one other editor has also made similar sensible minor alterations. I see the contribution from Ctpnono as largely impartial guidance on content policy. He has provided a list of concerns which I have began to work on. Those have not been disputed. There is an issue with perceived neutrality, leaving the tag at least until we have worked through the list provided seems sensible. I do not agree with them all, but they are sufficient to warrant discussion. I have reverted the last removal of the flag because of the edit summary "BNP/EDL supporters will never accept that the article is NPOV" which amounts to WP:Bait. Well I've taken the bait. I do not understand the resistance to the tag as I said at the previous ANI. Although some of us are satisfied with the consensus, we should be using that as a basis for improvement, not assuming that we have reached a de facto standard. Maybe we could substitute the {article issues} tag? Leaky Caldron 09:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are further questions arising and likely POV appearing in the article. Some editors reject the use of the term "international" in relation to separate organisations in England Scotland and Wales, and also reject any reference to the the well-documented links to Israel. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thus lay the question: If there continues to be disagreement over the content of the article-in-question, should a PoV tag be added? GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. The neutrality also goes both ways. One of the first things I mentioned was that "claim"n was used in a way that could make the media's position look less favorable than the EDL's. There are also ongoing discussions about other issues. To pretend there is not a dispute and not to let the reader know about it is wrong.Cptnono (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, it looks like you're the sole person disputing the POV. That does not generally suffice for keeping a tag in place when consensus is that it's not necessary. Instead of fighting to retain the tag, discuss the issues you believe to be POV on the talk page. I'm not seeing anything for admins to deal with here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are issues relating to weight of evidence and interpretation of available sourcing which many editors disagree over. This is a sensitive quasi-political article. It is dificult to verify all of the claims about the organisation. Even if they look and sound like a particular thing, and the support that, the organisation itself publicly deny some of those claim. If you have interpreted this saga as simply being one editor out of sync. with the rest, then, with respect, I would ask you to examine the talk page issues in greater detail. Leaky Caldron 14:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence says otherwise Leaky - you are doing the right thing, editing the article dealing with issues which are brought up. You also were a key part of achieving a compromise over the "far right" issue wheras our friend is, as stated, the only one arguing that the article is POV. --Snowded ^TALK 15:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is true if the NPOV concerns are confined to "right wing". Ctpnono has expressed a need for a qualification of the sources and might be the only one holding out for that. I wrote the above shortly after the "political" issue was raised yet again. With editor support hopefully issue that will not arrive back at this noticeboard! Leaky Caldron 17:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll buck the trend and say that usernames, like user pages, exist to serve encyclopedic purposes, not to turn Wikipedia into Myspace. Usernames intended to titillate or provoke any sort of reaction and which result in any sort of disruption, are more trouble than they are worth. If a slightly-questionable username has been in use for a while and is backed by a good editing record, let it slide. If it's a new account and someone has an issue with the name, tell the user to pick another name. Egregious offensiveness should not be the criterion. Usernames are for the benefit of the encyclopedia, not the user. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Deleted post readded in altered form to Talk:2009 flu pandemic by country. Gabbe (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for this letter.

Article in EnWiki '2009 flu pandemic by country' regularly print newest data. We have no such article in russian and are using information from english article in our work.

Today we have new data about swine flu in Russia. I had tried to add information with internet link for administrators of '2009 flu pandemic by country' in Discussion part of this article. Information was deleted by user Zhang He (with reason: Unsorced). Then I asked Zhang He in his own page, why my information was deleted? if there is any my fault? He had deleted that question with reason Suspicious behavior.

I think it is his small mistake about my actions. It is also little strange because National emergency in USA was declared by USA President. And now in Russia we also have deaths and rapid spread. And administrators of article '2009 flu pandemic by country' need to change many tables and maps.

Initial text for information was: - == New data from Russia == - - Two women diagnosed with swine flu have died... - More than 1,300 confirmed swine flu cases across Russia as of October 26... - http://en.rian.ru/russia/20091027/156601587.html

If you think it is important information for EnWiki, would you please to inform administrators of '2009 flu pandemic by country'

Sincerely. Andrey from Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.79.89.74 (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Zhang He (talk · contribs) for an explanation on his/her talk page. I'm not sure the information you provided belongs in the article, but since you seem to be acting in good faith, your question warrants a proper response in my opinion rather than a revert. Gabbe (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Success and inspiration to you and to Zhang He in your common work.

Andrey from RuWiki --213.79.89.74 (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and his conduct at Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation . Engaged in edit warring here: [23] [24] When he realized he had reached 3RR, he then canvassed two like-minded editors [25] [26] to join the fray. This is a violation of WP:CANVASS and, while not technically violating WP:3RR, it is a violation of the spirit of WP:EDITWAR. There has been similar conduct at another article, ACORN. I believe this conduct has earned a block. Since he has already experienced 24-hour and 48-hour blocks, this one should be a seven-day block. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is rather chilling given Noroton's history here, his attempt to intervene in the Obama arbcom case, and 64's attempt to wake him from the wiki-dead.[28] Let's nip this sock in the bud before it causes a real fuss. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cmt it's blindingly obvious at this point that the ips are connected to this banned user [29].Bali ultimate (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of socks

Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked for a week for operating at least three alternate accounts:[30]

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

These are nearly a year old, and collectively have made well over 10,000 edits, not all of them innocent,[31] including during periods when Noroton was blocked or supposedly retired. I note that Noroton posted a long screed here similar to the accusations made above,[32] shortly before announcing his retirement,[33] and shares[34] with the 64 IP editor[35] a fondness for Goya. What to make of this? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I've asked the blocking admin[36] to help us understand what's going on there. Wasn't there another incident lately of a long-time content editor around the American politics articles who created sock accounts in response to a block? I'm trying to recall. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment. Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely,

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

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

and any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• There was an ArbCom case in October 2007, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, in which the remedies required that editors first be placed on probation, and then limited to 1RR, one revert per article per week.
• The remedies of the case were then extended in October 2008, by community discussion[39] to include all articles related to the Troubles (British/Ireland article), with blocks of 1 week for even the first offense, to be extended to 1 month, and then discuss ban options after that. However, unfortunately, "1RR" was not clearly defined in the October 2008 discussion, so there is ambiguity as to whether the "all articles" restriction meant "1 revert per article per week", or "1 revert per article per day".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One thing to consider is the impact[40] of ad hoc constraints. I'm not an editor involved normally in this area, nor has anyone suggested that I am (specifically I surfed the broad subject after a discussion here, edited maybe 3 articles) - indeed I was just working on an interesting stub that seemed to have easily accessible ref's to expand upon. But one of the unique things I've noticed here is the high degree of interaction between a tight knit group of editors focused solely on this broad area who edit as a group and are quite openly discussing cooperation amongst themselves in numerous locations or possibly seeking out[41] supporting editors. The problem may be as much an abdication by neutral editors due to the stresses involved in contributing in this area as anything else. Artificial limits - without consideration of the associated gaming consequences, should be fully discussed before implementation as broad official policy....-99.135.174.186 (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This link[42] may be more informative as to the source of tension indicated above. _-99.135.174.186 (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concur with Off2riorob's summary, nice job.  :) I'd also add that BigDunc and IP99 were both very clear that there was a one-revert-per-week restriction on Irish Bulletin. In fact, I'd even mistakenly said one revert per day[43] when I first started monitoring the article, but errors were pointed out in my post,[44] so I struck out the "once per day" part.[45] BigDunc even repeated the 1RR restriction back to me,[46][47] because he had strong concerns about it. So it's clear that he knew about the restriction ahead of time. --Elonka 01:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dealing with IP editors in this area

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geez people

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

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

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

Addendum to community sanction

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

• 1RR may mean 1 revert per article per day, or 1 revert per article per week, depending on context, as follows:
  • A limit of one revert per article per week is a restriction which can be placed per the original wording of The Troubles case from 2007. This is a per-editor restriction. The affected editor must be formally warned by an uninvolved administrator on their talkpage, with a link to the case, and an indication of how long that the editor is on on probation for, up to a maximum of six months. The notification and terms of the probation must be logged to the Case page. After an editor has been formally placed on probation, they are restricted to 1 revert per article per week, for the duration of the probation. If the editor is blocked while on probation, this automatically resets the length of time of their probation to the original maximum.
  • Per community consensus from 2008,[48] there is also a 1RR per day restriction, on all Troubles articles. This means that any editor who reverts on a Troubles-related article more than once in a 24-hour period may be blocked immediately, for up to one week, even on the first offense. However, administrators are still advised to use good judgment, to assume good faith, and to avoid biting genuinely new users. So, at the administrator's discretion, they may choose to issue a warning rather than a block.

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

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

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

Resolved

 – Can't say I'm happy with the resolution but I accept nothing is going to happen. Dpmuk (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting this here rather than the edit war notice board as the arguments used by the other user (Francis Schonken (talk · contribs)) seem to take this beyond a simple edit war and into other areas - it hinges quite a lot on whether consensus has been formed and related issues. Following a previous thread here I started a thread at the Village Pump and other users then changed this policy based on their interpretation of an RfC, changes which I supported. Francis Schonken obviously disagrees and reverted these changes (largely made by other editors). I reverted this once and left an explanation on the talk page stating that I thought a consensus had been reached (his original edit summary made no mention of the fact that he thought consensus hadn't been reached so I don't think I was out of line to make one revert based on my opinion that consensus had now been reached). I'm not going to revert again as I'll definitely be in edit warring territory. Relevant discussions are:

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (precision)#RfC: Should we allow article titles that differ only by capitalisation?
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#RfC: Should we allow article titles that differ only by capitalisation?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Reversions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)
• User talk:Dpmuk#3RR
• [49]

Don't know how best to take this forward so if it's the opinion of an admin that no admin action is necessary then I'd appreciate some more advice. Dpmuk (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Forum shopping? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and not the first time on WP:ANI either..., seems like complainant did not learn much from answers received at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Reversions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly forum shopping. I'd already linked to my previous thread above - I'm trying to be as open as possible. Personally I think several of Francis Schonken's actions have been out of order and that they've miss understood how wikipedia works on at least one occasion and so think this may now need admin action (I agree it didn't previously - that thread was looking for advice). I've deliberately not listed them here so as not to inflame the situation. A neutral admin can then look over both our actions and act as they see fit. If a reviewing admin wants my specific concerns listed then I'll be happy to do so. Dpmuk (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, a textbook example of forum shopping. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this from the archive and added it back here as no one has yet commented on the actual reason for the thread - all the discussion that has taken place is about the definition of forum shopping. I suppose it's possible that people thought this was being dealt with due to that conversation. Dpmuk (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think admin action may be needed. Just to make that clear. I despair sometimes. It would appear that as I tried to be neutral and not spell out my problems no admin is interested in the problem. Yes this isn't simple but I believe it's important and needs an admin's eyes on it. If admin's disagree post and say as much - I may be wrong. However, if I am wrong I will lose a lot of faith in this project given the important issues I think are involved here. Dpmuk (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything an admin can do here. Changes were made, an editor reverted, now you all need to discuss it on the proper talk page. Failing that, go through dispute resolution. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only presume that you haven't read everything linked to above. There was an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (precision) as the issue could also affect Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) I posted a note on that talk page to point editors at the RfC. It makes no sense, nor is there a requirement, to hold two separate RfC about the same topic just because they are on different pages. At the end of the RfC there was a clear consensus about what was allowable and what wasn't. I made some changes to the policy on this basis. User:Francis Schonken then reverted because they didn't like my wording. Following advice I then got wider consensus and a couple of other editors came up with a new form of words which I accepted. User:Francis Schonken then removed the whole lot again because in his eyes there is no consensus. In my opinion this is clearly edit warring - there's certainly a consensus to include something and just removing it wholesale is edit warring. I have no problem with them changing the wording as consensus for that is slightly less clear but there is a clear consensus for the basic idea.

Further I would point to User:Francis Schonken comments both in the edit logs and on the talk page which, IMO, make it clear that they don't want to discuss the issue believing there is no consensus. It seems crazy to me that a single editor can disagree with a clear consensus, without giving a valid reason, and have their version of a page remain. It makes a mockery of the whole consensus process. Dpmuk (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest I do now - hold an RfC to see if the previous consensus was correct. That seems a dangerous road to go down - what happens if someone disputes that consensus, do we leave the page as it is while we hold yet another RfC, the whole process could go on for ever. Dpmuk (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that you're not an administrator, so to date not a single administrator has replied. Dpmuk (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr.

I can only assume other Admins aren't replying because RfC is not the last step in the dispute resolution process, and AN/I isn't any step in the resolution process. You're in the wrong place, and it shouldn't take an admin to point that out. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, speaking as an Admin (& that with about $3 will get you a cup of yuppie coffee at Starbucks) I'll say this: you two are arguing over (1) something that involves the Manual of Style that (2) concerns whether capitalization is important enough to create a new article, & which (3) in many instances can be painlessly handled by one or more redirects. It is these kinds of tempest-in-a-teacup battles which have reduced the importance of MoS to somewhere slightly above a deleted comment of a banned troll. In other words, no one cares either about this feud -- or what MoS says about the matter. Take this back to the relevant Talk page over at MoS & continue your argument there -- or figure out what you two can agree on & persuade the rest of us that what you two agree on is a productive way to handle the matter. Do that, & maybe the two of you can change how MoS works & restore some respect & influence to it. -- llywrch (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this has left me completely disillusioned with the whole wikipedia project. I will happily accept that the issue itself is a small one, although one I think it was worth getting some clarity on given that I'd seen it discussed in several different places. I also do not agree that non one cares given that several people commented. However my concerns always has been, and still is, with the process of consensus building and that's the reason I brought it here. If an article is recreated after a deletion discussion decided delete it is speedied. I don't see the difference between that and a closed RfC but it would appear that from the discussion here anyone can ignore the consensus formed at an RfC and revert to their hearts content with no danger of any come back. To me this makes the whole RfC process pointless if the consensus formed there can be ignored. There has to come a time when ignoring a clear consensus is no longer a dispute but rather is being disruptive and that in my opinion is what's happened here - hence the reason I brought it this board (I know ANI is no part of the dispute resolution process). Yes the issue itself is small but I think it sets a dangerous precedent.

I'm also intrigued as to what other steps are possible after RfC -WP:DISPUTE appear to list none (except possibly mediation if both parties agree).

Finally I brought it here because I thought an editor was being disruptive. Others obviously disagree but that's no reason to be so mocking. Dpmuk (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You brought it here because you thought another editor was being disruptive, which would have been fine. The problem lies in that, when others pointed out your mistake, you wouldn't listen. And when the conversation was closed and archived, you opened it back up. And when still others told you this wasn't the forum for it, you wouldn't listen because they weren't administrators. Now Llywrch and myself, both administrators, are also telling you this doesn't belong here, and you launch into some anti-Wikipedia diatribe. If the process is too stressful for you, find something else to do. In time, someone else will come along who can take care of it. If, on the other hand, you actually feel this is important enough to warrant resolution, then go back to the talk page and keep discussing it. Ask for mediation if you need help. This has nothing to do with AN/I. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am letting the issue itself drop but have several issues with what you just said. This conversation was never 'closed' before it was archived. At the point of archival no administrator had commented on my actual request - yes there had been some replies but they seemed more to do with the definition of forum shopping and looked to be overspill from the thread originally above this - when I asked for clarification as to whether I was forum shopping none was forthcoming. Thus at the point of me bringing it back I was under the reasonable impression that they had been no reply at all that actually concerned the problem. The editor (User:HandThatFeeds) who first replied doesn't appear to have understood my request. I accept that maybe I didn't word my original request in the right way and didn't say I thought it was edit warring but I got the impression that this editor seems to have thought it was purely a content dispute and not that my request was about behaviour during the dispute, hence I made a request for another editor to look at it and asked for an admin to as I thought admin action was required. I make no apologies for renewing my request at that point.

If instead of me re-opening this thread you are referring to me starting this thread after my thread of a few days ago then there had been significant events in between - namely other editors had edited the relevant bit of the process - and so I thought the situation had changed significantly enough to warrant bringing it back here (although I appear to have been mistaken).

My "anti-wikipedia diatribe" as you put it was more intended as a closing statement by me explaining why I was letting it drop and my feelings about the process although I probably didn't make this clear. I was not expecting any administrators to take action - I possibly erred in not marking the thread "resolved". I am still not "anti-wikipedia" and still think it's a brilliant resource however I think admins should be willing to enforce consensus but the impression I get is that often they will not do so. If it's community consensus that you don't do so in such situations (which it appears to be) then I have no choice to accept that, however it's not an environment in which I can work as I feel it is essential that once consensus it obtained it is acted upon and that discussion shouldn't continue ad infinitum just because one editor disagrees. Consequently I have decided to refrain from editing wikipedia for a while, possibly forever. Dpmuk (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – all ips blocked or inactive Toddst1 (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following IP addresses have been used by a single editor to make disruptive edits.

• 76.172.176.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.91.152.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 216.100.93.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The edits are not obvious vandalism, such as the inclusion of nonsense or profanity, but rather, they are edits that go against policy, guidelines, and consensus. Multiple editors have reverted the edits, and some have tried to engage the editor in talk page discussions to resolve the issue. The troublesome editor has never responded; he/she simply repeats the edits. The editor was blocked for disruptive editing on the first IP address, evaded the block by going to the second IP address, was blocked again there, and evaded that block by using the third IP address.

Here are some selected edits.

1. Sur la Mer article; user persists in changing text in the article from "Sur la Mer" to "Sur La Mer" when article naming and lead section conventions instruct editors to use lowercase for articles ("la" vs. "La") and to use the name of the article in the first sentence. See: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]
2. Instant Karma!, Power to the People (song), Get Back, Happy Xmas (War Is Over), Hey Jude, and other articles; user persists in modifying infobox to indicate that the single was issued from an album when the song was originally released as a non-album single and was only added to the album as a bonus track on a CD-era re-release. See: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]

I recently requested a block for the latest IP address, but admin Toddst1 declined the request and said the edits were not vandalism. I don't care what we call this behavior (vandalism or something else), I only know that cleaning up after them is tedious and frustrating. The user refuses to discuss anything with anyone, persists in making many disruptive edits, and has evaded multiple blocks. Help! — John Cardinal (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

216.100.93.128 (talk · contribs) might not have been obviously vandalizing yesterday, but s/he was today - blocked 2 mos. Toddst1 (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

76.172.176.45 (talk · contribs) is already blocked and 76.91.152.248 (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since his/her Oct 25 block. Toddst1 (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He/she is back on 76.91.152.248 (talk · contribs), see: [70]). Only a single edit so far, but the pattern has been that there will be a rash of edits shortly, many confusing, half-done changes, 98% worthy of reverts. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 3 months for block evasion. Thanks for catching that. All 3 IP addresses tagged as socks of each other. Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just indefinitely blocked Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Additional openly available technical information was located overnight by other Wikimedians which identified that an IP address that Leatherstocking has used before ( 64.183.125.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ( see [71] for an example of him taking credit for that logged-out edit ) is in fact not on the US East Coast as had previously been indicated, but is in fact in California and is a business DSL connection with customer ID information of "American System Publications", which is a Lyndon LaRouche organization.

Leatherstocking has repeatedly denied that he is a person associated with the Lyndon LaRouche organization - [72] [73]. Based on those representations and a lack of other technical evidence to the contrary, I and other administrators have assumed good faith about his Wikipedia contributions and believed that he was an independent person in this matter.

Recently udpated geolocation information is available at: http://www.utrace.de/whois/64.183.125.210, http://www.utrace.de/ip-adresse/64.183.125.210.

Behavioral evidence and now technical evidence connects Leatherstocking with the LaRouche sockpuppets, including the Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) sockpuppet farm.

After being notified of the apparent connection, I went digging through contributions, other technical resources, and anything else I could find which might contradict the apparently solid new information. I was unable to find any information which did not match the sockpuppet pattern and new technical information.

Based on the totality of the information available at this time, I am placing an indefinite block upon Leatherstocking. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying that Leatherstocking is a sockpuppet of Herschelkrustofsky. Is that correct? --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. This is a single-purpose account with a link to the LaRouche organisation, which group has been responsible for some of the longest-lived edit wars and POV disputes on Wikipedia. There are several arbitration cases aroud LaRouche. So this could be a meatpuppet, a sockpuppet, or just a disruptive POV-pushing SPA, but the action in all three cases is about the same. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don' think being a LaRouche supporter or organization member is a blockable offense. Lacking an army of truly neutral editors willing to edit these article, we need both supporters and opponents. I'd rather have them fighting and get neutral coverage in the end, than let the LaRouche opponents take over. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lying about being a LaRouche supporter over and over again, pretending to be an uninvolved editor trying to balance criticism on the LaRouche articles, while subtly working to integrate LaRouche propaganda into the articles, that is a blockable offense. He was recently called on a deliberate deception where he pretended that some foreign language references were third party reliable sources, and then it turned out that they were recreations of LaRouche publications. Yes, I'll admit to being a little bitter because I've been asking people to WP:AGF with Leatherstocking for months now. That good faith was wasted and misplaced. -- Atama頭 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in the same manner as HK is a blockable offense, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. Until we implement biometric registration, we'll never be entirely sure that two accounts are being operated by the same person. But there is enough evidence here to deduce that Leatherstocking is HK, or at most someone very close to him. There have ben at least 50 HK socks in the past, several of them using the same "I'm not a LaRouche member, but I just read a pamphlet and came here to learn more" line that Leatherstocking used a variant of. The sharpest evidence is that LS followed the same strange editing schedule as HK. LS had detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures, which is typical of sock behavior. LS had the exact same POV as HK, and championed the exact wording of text that HK had originally added to articles. LS tag teamed with other HK socks, in a fashion typical of past sock collections. (HK likes to use three or more socks at once.) They edited from the same small geographical area. And so on. LS has been "quacking" very loudly and we should have investigated this more closely in the past, but the IP information was either accidentally or intentionally misleading and so previous investigations were cut short.

If, despite all the evidence to the contrary, LS is a different person than HK then we have another problem. Earlier this year the ArbCom found that there had been a pattern of sock accounts using Church of Scientology computers to edit Scientology-related articles. Because of that longterm disruption the ArbCom passed a remedy banning editing from CoS-owned IPs. If there is a team of editors sitting in a LaRouche office pretending to be uninvolved and editing LaRouche topics aggressively, then that's a serious problem.

LS was an aggressive editor. In addition to edit warring he filed numerous complaints against other editors trying to have them blocked, banned or topic banned. HK is a senior administrator of Wikipedia Review who has created special subtopics there to house his diatribes against editors he fights with. He's also used that forum to gain sympathy for his editing and to depict himself as a put-upon underdog. Let's remember that Lyndon LaRouche's following is a fringe movement, and their views are widely considered to be fringe or extreme as well. On Wikipedia we should depict all significant views using the neutral point of view, but we should not give fringe views excess weight, nor depict them as mainstream views. We don't need HK's socks in order to write NPOV articles on LaRouche topics.   Will Beback  talk  18:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get too picky and choosy about context here. As someone who frequents Wikipedia Review, I would observe that my perception is that HK on WR is viewed as something of a 'crackpot' who has, to my mind, a valid beef about neutrality on disputed articles, but who also went about things in 'not the acceptable way', as well as being as guilty of offences against neutrality as those he accused. I doubt anyone would say he was either seeking sympathy, or even attempting to. In fact he himself stated as much in the last few days, when SlimVirgin tried to categorize his opinions as some WR "groupthink" positioning, and stated that even he believed most there presumed him to be a loon. But nonetheless, many there believe that there are some fundamental issues with neutrality, particularly as they relate to BLP, that are far from resolved, in a general sense. I would tend to agree. Achromatic (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for how HK is regarded on WR. If there are NPOV or BLP problems with articles then let's address those directly in an honest manner. There is no topic on Wikipedia that requires the involvement of banned users in order to achieve compliance with best practices. I invite any editor in good standing to read the LaRouche-related articles carefully and raise any issues on the appropriate talk pages. That's how things should be done - not through deception and teams of sock accounts.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go as far as suggesting that if a Wikipedia-clueful (or openminded and willing to learn and take it gently and slowly) LaRouche related or affiliated person who is able to be clearly identified as not being Hershelkrustofsky (who has abused so many times and in so many ways that a permanent ban is entirely appropriate), wants to come to Wikipedia, openly declare who they are and their affiliation and COI, and then engage in reasonable discussions to identify issues which they believe are improper under Wikipedia policy (or basic human dignity or intellect) with the article, then they'd probably be welcomed. None of the groups who we have taken collective actions against has been banned from ever participating, as a group, even when we've blocked IP ranges for the groups. Some members, and abusive on-wiki behavior, are banned. But that's not the same as everyone is.

If you lie and use subterfuge, you are automatically suspect. If you sockpuppet abusively or edit war or attempt to whitewash or suppress content, you're suspect. But if someone new comes here and agrees not to do those things, it would be a good thing.

There are procedures in place for identifying onesself to the Wikimedia Foundation, privately, in some cases of unblock reviews and other abuse cases where being able to tell who someone is in real life matters.

The key problem here has been, and remains, that Hershelkrustofsky is (or was) a very bad Wikipedian, and a terrible representative of the group on Wikipedia. And yet he's apparently the only one who's come forwards. If the group wants to be taken seriously they need to find someone who does not live near him, work for him, share any IP connectivity with him, who's willing to be honest and up front and straightforwards. HK will eventually figure out (or be forcefully enough told) that his actions have largely contributed to the LaRouche movement's bad reputation online (in general, and on Wikipedia in particular) rather than helped it. When he steps back, and the LaRouche organization has a reasonable, constructive, and open representative here, the problems should die back to a dull roar and they are more likely to get effective long term changes to balance out areas which may be unbalanced now.

Hopefully the time for that will be sooner rather than later. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur.   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback  talk  18:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly a good block and an overdue one. Re "I'd rather have them fighting and get neutral coverage in the end" (Apoc2400), that's not the way we do things here. We all have the obligation to edit neutrally, and those editing tendentiously in areas of wiki-conflict should get diminished AGF because the amount of gaming of the system constantly taking place in those areas. Also, the best-informed opponent of the Larouchies on Wikipedia was Chip Berlet (User:Cberlet), who left the project in 2008 after endless conflict with them. His departure pretty much removed any hope of reaching neutrality through edit warring, not that the concept ever really made any sense. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

No admin action needed here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I closed this AfD earlier. Further to a note on my talk page please could an administrator review my closure and reverse it, if found to be wrong.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly clear consensus to keep: "no consensus" would be stretching things. Good close. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'm the cause of this post, because I posted about it on the closer's talk page, but in fact I don't dispute the consensus of the debate nor do I wish it to be overturned. I do, however, wish to discourage NAC's in debates where the criteria of speedy keep isn't explicitly met. ThemFromSpace 00:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:NAC merely requires an editor familiar with AfD and an unambiguous result. I do think both applied here, and I think NAC goes a little beyond just "speedy keep" grounds—particularly given the declining population of admins with which we're currently faced.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DPR#NAC states "Editors in good standing who have not been made administrators may close deletion discussions...Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." Since this was neither, there's nothing to discourage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good close. However, you probably should let an admin next time make such a close. Of course, your alternative is to go for RFA again :) MuZemike 01:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good close. No issues with invoking NAC. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valid close. Although if a NAC is likely to cause conflict, might want to wait... Xavexgoem (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere between endorse and weak endorse – no point in pro forma overturning with these admin endorsements, but I don't wish to encourage NACs of AfDs falling outside "near unanimous". Flatscan (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contentious editor, claiming to be someone else, continually restoring personal attacks. Not sure which woodshed to take that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hum, so he's not that "MARDYKS" character, he's just pretending to be a blocked editor ? that doesn't look like a very smart strategy. --McSly (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week for disruptive editing. However, I'm going to bed, so if consensus develops to shorten/lift the block, feel free. TNXMan 03:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a User:MARDYKS or User:Mardyks. I do see people removing edits from 63.232.20.2, claiming the user is evading a block; might be related to 67.164.149.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), blocked for block evasion, and 97.123.59.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), not blocked. I do see some problematic behavior, but if that's the full story it seems that circular blocks are being levied. I could be missing something, so will ask User:Shii for some insight. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some IPs of Mardyks: User:Shii/Mardyks One is what you listed as blocked and the other one is quite similar to one that was blocked. He's been harassing people on Maya-related articles for a while but nobody asked for admin intervention until just recently. Shii (tock) 12:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't bother with IP vandals at WP:ANI any more because it's very hard for admin to do anything about them, I understand that. Mardyks is vaguely entertaining in a trollish sort of way, if Wikipedia were a forum I'd probably bait him to get him to say more and more preposterous things... talk page is not a forum though and this would not be appropriate. As it is not, and as he treats it as a forum with his posts I find myself cleaning up his silliness on a regular basis. If something can be done... like an IP range block on annonymous editors on maya related talk pages... I'd support it. As a note Mardyks was the one who directed me in how to find out that he was a blocked user... then denied being a blocked user a few minutes later... Honestly he's a bit of a clown.Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional info. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am really tired of cleaning up after this vandal. I request an edit filter, and while it blocks some of his edits it does not block all of his edits. Thirty of my edits in the last half hour were reverts and reporting this vandal's latest IP. His ISP (Bell Canada) has been completely unresponsive. If his IP is not blocked for a long enough period of time, he returns on the same IP address. If the IP is blocked for a long enough period of time, he manually reassigns his computer an IP address. The only way in the past that I have been able to prevent this vandal from editing has been to block large swaths of his ISP's access to Wikipedia. The following IPs are all that he has used that has been tracked with the edit filter and visible from edits prior to the filter's implimentation:

There's a clear range he's editing from ith only a few random outliers. If we cannot adequately control this vandal, then in the past I had blocked his IP ranges for six month blocks. It worked because there was surely barely any vandalism to these articles when the ranges were blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a few exemplar diffs of vandalism that didn't get caught by the current filter? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the edits by 64.228.129.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 70.48.112.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since he can't put the text blocked by filter 213, he's taken to whitewashing articles of content relating to Saban Entertainment (as he's always done), but has also begun blanking unrelated articles of unrelated content, changing ages and other numbers. I don't think another abuse filter will do much of anything here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a few rangeblocks? Cirt (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocks could work, but it would also affect users with good intentions on this major ISP.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This "new" user has been removing maintenance tags from several articles without making any attempt to improve the articles first. I suspect that the inclusion of the failed FA candidate Hampshire County Cricket Club and the name of the user points to a clear Hampshire connection here. Could you please investigate further and revert aas necessary. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Portsmouth&Southsea hasn't been informed that they are being discussed here. Secondly, no communication has been attempted with P&S. As you say, P&S is a new editor. Therefore they are expected to make mistakes. Bringing this here as a first port of call is very Bitey . Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P&S has now been informed of the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my cynicism but this is not a new user. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI is thattaway. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Blocked 1 week

Amiteli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user just added a bunch of "citations" to various game articles. The citations were actually referral links for topsites. I've reverted them all, but since the user has made no other contributions, I'd say someone should probably just block it as a vandalism only account. My experience with these kinds of accounts is that they generally lay low for a few months and they try and plaster the link in a bunch of other articles. The site in question (can be found in the contribs) could be blacklisted as well as I can't find anything redeeming about it.--Crossmr (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amiteli has not edited since the final warning was issued. Let's wait and see what happens next. Also, Amiteli has not been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amiteli now notified. Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of thinking doesn't generally apply to vandalism only accounts, and as I pointed out, they might not edit for awhile only to come back and plaster 20 more articles. This was deceptive editing, attempting to hide top site referral links as citations with no other contributions.--Crossmr (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at the top of the page make it clear that the other party has to be informed, and that discussion should have taken place first. The warning tag you placed is sufficient for now discussion-wise. Further vandalism merits a report at WP:AIV or flagging up here. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's still spamming, just thought I'd let you know. Eik Corell (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more he isnn't. Blocked 1 week. If he won't reform after the block expires it'll be indef next time. Mjroots (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The story is well known, the Polish Arm forces in the West were excluded from the parade victory because the British government didn't want to anger Stalin and instead send invitation to the puppet communist authorities in Warsaw which refused to participate.
user:Varsovian keeps deleting this info because he says "that the Poles were invited" coz he found some old program of the parade or something. I have tried to discuss things with him on the talk page for nearly a month however it turned impossible to do so because he completely ruined the talk with lengthy rants in which he constantly dances on the border of trolling. (For example saying that things like that the sources which are written 50+ year after the event are not reliable, that the article should have only info on which every source agrees and similar nonsense). Please note I don't even object he adds his (IMO wrong) view into the article however I think that the fact that the Polish soldiers/airmen/pilots who were not invited to the parade felt betrayed and that some respectable authors think they should have been invited, something which is sourced, should be in the article too. But Varsovian just keeps removing this for month: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83] and so on and on and on... it's too tiring to list all his diffs. Anyway today he yet again removed sourced material [84]. He has already been blocked [85] for this edit warring but seems he didn't learn the lesson.
Due to his obsessive views and the lack of will to accept a view different than his on POV into the article, it is completely impossible to work with user:Varsovian on that page and I'm forced to ask a topic ban for him there.
I'd also note that me and at least 3 other users (2 of them are admins) suspect that user:Varsovian is a socket/meta puppet account created to provoke certain users because he appeared on that page from nowhere and exhibited knowledge for wikipedia procedures in far exceeding those of a typical new user which he claims he is. Loosmark (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - if a programme exists from the time stating that the Poles would take part, isn't that a verifiable source for the statement? Mjroots (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. We simple don't know under what circumstances was the programme printed/made, or what exactly does it say (it maybe refers to the invitation given to the communist authorities in Poland I don't know). In any case I don't oppose having this programme in the article. Loosmark (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed one version of the story. Unfortunately it is not the version put forward by a number of serious sources. Among such sources are:

^[1]“An Army in Exile” by General Władysław Anders, leader of the Free Polish forces;

^[2] An article in The Guardian by Prof. Norman Davies (in which he states that not only were Free Polish forces invited but that the invitation was sent to General Władysław Anders;

^[3] An article by Rudolf Falkowski, former member of 303 Polish Squadron;

^[4]”The Poles in Britain1940-2000: from betrayal to assimilation'” by Prof Peter Stachura M.A., Ph.D., D.Litt., F.R.Hist.S.;

^[5]An article in Wprost by Edward Lucas (English translation by the author is here ^[6])

[86] The doctoral thesis of Dr. Mark Ostrowski;

The Times newspaper of June 1946 which states “Polish airmen who took part in the Battle of Britain were invited, but they do not wish to march unless Polish soldiers and sailors of the Western Command can march with them.”

There are also two entries from Hansard ^[7] and ^[8] but those are obviously primary sources (which are supported by the secondary sources). There is also ^[9] the Official Programme of the Victory Celebrations on 8th June 1946 in London, which was published by His Majesty's Stationery Office. Again a primary source but one confirmed by secondary sources. I could most probably arrange for a scan of the entire document to be posted on Wikicommons (the copyright has expired) but that will take a while. There's a scan of the cover here [87] and a scan of pages two and three here [88] (note that the scan shows precisely the same wording as [89] states).

Despite Loosmarks accusations, I am very happy to see alternative versions of this article. I wrote this one [[90]] which goes into great detail and contains 28 sources. Almost all of it was deleted and all 16 sources which do not support a certain PoV were deleted. I then proposed a completely neutral version which covered the parade in deatil but did not cover the debate as to which Poles were and weren’t invited (I proposed a new article for that), it too was reverted to include a statement about Poles being excluded [91]. I then proposed a third version which covered all the groups which were not invited, it too was reverted [92].

I have been trying to discuss the article but am faced with a constant barrage of insults and accusations from Loosmark and one other editor. Just one example: yesterday I asked Loosmark seven times to moderate his tone [93][94][95][96][97][98][99] he promptly told me “Stop trolling this talk page.” when I discussed the merits of a particular source [100].

I would further note that I am not the first person to notice the problems with this article. http://2ndww.blogspot.com/search?q=victory+parade is an post from some three years ago in which a British veteran who was actually at the parade complains about Wikipedia and “Polish nationalists. and perhaps others who are well-intentioned but ill-informed, persist in seeing the parade as a slur on them.”Varsovian (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Times newspaper of June 1946 which states “Polish airmen who took part in the Battle of Britain were invited, but they do not wish to march unless Polish soldiers and sailors of the Western Command can march with them.” Yeah we went over this at least million times on the talk page. This source (Varsovian's!) for example just confirms what am i saying all along: The Polish Army and Navy representatives were NOT invited and neither were the majority of the Polish Air Force. At the moment I don't have time to check other sources he machined gunned here but I bet it's the same thing: the sources just don't say what he claims they do. Loosmark (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree that representatives of the Western Command Polish Airforce were invited, why did you say at the top of this section "the Polish Arm[ed] forces in the West were excluded from the parade victory because the British government didn't want to anger Stalin and instead send invitation to the puppet communist authorities in Warsaw which refused to participate."? Furthermore, why do you object to my removing sources which say that all Poles were excluded? I do not have a track record of claim sources say something other than they say, but somebody who looks at the history of the article and the sources linked to may well discover that a certain editor has a record of doing precisely that.Varsovian (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See? This is exactly the kind of trolling I have indure for nearly a month. As I have already explained to you 1000 times I don't agree that the representatives of the Polish Armed Forces were invited, the Army representatives were not invited, the Navy representatives were not invited, the representatives of the Polish Air Force were not invited save for some few pilot who fought in summer of 1940. I have absolutely no problem with your point put in the article those few pilots who were invited but you keep axing out sourced material about the lack of invitation to the Army, the Navy and the majority of the Air Force who fought from 1939 to 1945. Loosmark (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you "don't agree that the representatives of the Polish Armed Forces were invited" but you agree that some pilots from the Polish Armed Forces were invited (the exact number was 25 of the 89 pilots who flew in the four Polish squadrons and as we have established, that is a far higher percentage invited than other units). OK, that's clear. So why do you object to the removal of sources which say that all Poles were excluded? And why do you remove sources which say that some Poles were invited. Why can't you agree to either detailed discussion of the topic or to no discussion of the topic? Why must only one PoV (i.e. yours) be allowed in the article? I've presented three alternatives, you only one; I've written three different versions, you've written none: yet you accuse me of edit warring!Varsovian (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - On top of the edit warrings and attempts to disruption here is the example of the open personal attack during my conversation with user Varsovian yesterday on the same Victory parade talk page[[101]]:

"You really are comedy gold! Firstly, to speak for myself I have no idea which night bus I would take to get home: I use these things called taxis. Secondly my assistant says that you are an idiot (although I would never use such incivil language to you). N24 does not go to Saska Kepa: it goes to Praga-Poludnie. To get to Saska Kepa she would take N72.Varsovian (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)"

(Please note that user Varsovian removed entire conversation from the talk page)

User Varsovian was also recently blocked for similar behaviour and edit warring[[102]] as well as warned later here[[103]].--Jacurek (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was not removed. It was moved to User talk:Jacurek because you wanted to talk about things other than the article. Any reasson why you don't mention that the thread was all about you assuming bad faith and trying to prove that I am a liar by asking me questions about which bus in Warsaw goes where? Any reason why you don't mention you linking my reply to Polite fiction? Would you like me to list all the times when you call me a troll or a sockpuppet?Varsovian (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varsovian, if you'd stop pretending you are a new user when clearly you are not then people would find it easier to asume good faith. Loosmark (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AGF )and WP:QUICKSOCK. I would be grateful if you could at least try to refrain from saying that I am a liar. Thank you in advance.Varsovian (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this in entirely the wrong place? At the top of this page it says "What this page is not This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues." and also says "To report edit warring, see the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.", Loosmark wants a ban for me but it says "To start a ban discussion, see the administrators' noticeboard." Loosmark says I'm a puppet but "To report suspected sockpuppetry, see Sockpuppet investigations." Jacurek says I've been incivil but "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts." Varsovian (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported you here because you are edit warring, the other board is for the 3RR violations. I have not asked for admin action due to suspected sockpuppetry at this point. Anyway I see you are trying to derail this discussion into a mess similar to the talk page of the parade article. Please stay on topic and address why you keep edit warring to remove sourced material. Loosmark (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Times newspaper of June 1946 which states “Polish airmen who took part in the Battle of Britain were invited, but they do not wish to march unless Polish soldiers and sailors of the Western Command can march with them"

I'd interpret that as saying "representatives of the Polish armed forces were invited" - Airmen are part of the Polish armed forces, they were invited but declined to take part. This seems to be a content dispute ans should be discussed on the article talk page. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots, no offence, but please get familiar with the subject and examine talk page of the article were User Varsovian goes against 4 other editors for a month. This is not about a content dispute. This is about constant manipulation of sources, sources removal, personal attacks and edit warring by user Varsovian.--Jacurek (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That unsigned comment is from Jacurek (as shown here [104])Varsovian (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation, a few airmen can hardly represent the big Polish army which fought with the British everywhere Narvik, France 1940, Tobruk, Monte Cassino etc etc you name it. Again I have no problem with having your interpretation in the article however if the Polish soldiers who fought with the Polish Army for example felt that they should have been invited and some historians state the same, and both these are properly souced then I don't see why that shouldn't be in the article. If I try adding anything remotely similar to the article Varsovian just deletes it out. These things were discussed on the article talk page for nearly a month and it's useless because Varsovian keeps deleting everything that doesn't fall into his "the Poles were invited" POV. Loosmark (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't they? Exactly the same was considered by the USA as sufficient to represent their massive army.

I'm quite happy to have sources which say that Polish soldiers who fought with the Polish Army for example felt that they should have been invited and indeed myself specifically wrote that precise point into the article and gave a source supporting that view. What I don't want to see is just one side being presented or sources being given to back a viewpoint which they simply do not support.Varsovian (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of administrator attention is required? This looks like a normal content conflict - use a WP:RFC, or, if its only you two, a WP:3O request. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normal content conflict? Riiight. In case you have missed it, the guy was already blocked for edit warring on that article and now continues to do so. Not to even mention that he basically concentrates 100% on that article and that a number of editors/admins suspect(ed) him of being either a sock or a meta. If that doesn't make all the alarm bells ring then I don't know what does. As for WP:3O and WP:RFC my experience with those is not positive, usually you have to wait forever and when somebody finally decides to comment it's some token generalistic advice which the other side is very likely to ignore anyway. Loosmark (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I've just looked at WP:3O and it says "The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute." Given that both Loosmark and Jacurek repeatedly accuse me of being a puppet and Loosmark has already talked in this thread about it not being easy for him to assume good faith towards me, I think WP:RFC might be the way to go. Although I personally would much prefer that Loosmark, Jacurek and I work through this together ourselves.Varsovian (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention is required among other things for example for this personal attack by user Varsovian:

"You really are comedy gold! Firstly, to speak for myself I have no idea which night bus I would take to get home: I use these things called taxis. Secondly my assistant says that you are an idiot (although I would never use such uncivil language to you). N24 does not go to Saska Kepa: it goes to Praga-Poludnie. To get to Saska Kepa she would take N72.Varsovian (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)"

Can everybody stop and let uninvolved administrator examine this complaint. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a personal attack by me: that is a verbatum comment from somebody who you called a liar (my assistant). BTW: there are two uninvolved administrators examining this complaint (Mjroots and Stephan Schulz): my reading of their statements is that we have a content dispute.Varsovian (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacurek, can you please avoid bolding every second sentence. Thanks. I've looked over a bit of your discussion. Neither of you is particularly civil, and either claiming serious hurt from this discussion rings hollow. Why don't you all do something else for a week and then try a reasoned discourse again? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's ok calling somebody an idiot as long as you claim it was "my assistent who called you so"? I am speechless. Loosmark (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem to affect your writing, though, just the verbalization. This is not a good faith discussion or an example of civility. If you suspect Varsovian to be a sock, file an SSI. Your sarcasm is transparent. I'm not thrilled by some of Varsovian's remarks, either, but I see no use in singling out one side when all are similarly uncivil. The atmosphere seems to be thoroughly poisoned. That's why I suggest you disengage to allow the air to clear and/or ask for more input via an RfC. We have no deadline, and there is no particular reason the get worked up over this historical detail. Nobody is gonna die if its wrong one way or the other for a week. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea Stephan. I will step away first and can assure that I will not edit the article for a week if neither Loosmark nor Jacurek do. If they can not stop themselves from editing it, well, I'll still try to keep away for a week.

Also I'd like to apologise for the incivil language. I sort of got a bit annoyed that somebody was repeatedly questioning me [105] [106][107][108][109][110] in an attempt to expose me as a liar.Varsovian (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan but this discussion is at the end of the endless conversations were Varsovian goes against an opinion of 4 other editors. But apart the discussion were he calls me an idiot indirectly can you examine the edit patterns (when you get a chance of course) of Varsovian and the Parade article talk page. I'm just wondering how uninvolved person would judge that because I'm loosing (maybe that what he wants :)) my mind already.--Jacurek (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Stephan, please note that the London Parade article was very stable until the sudden arrival of user Varsovian. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which explains why complaints about Polish editors in the article go back more than three years....Varsovian (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge any admin who is even going to consider doing this to refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jacurek, and particularly Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Comments_by_Varsovian before even looking at this. Disclaimer: I am currently an involved party in WP:EEML. Now for my observation; being a party to this particular RFAr, I have put all of the mailing list members talk pages on my watch list, and it is Jacurek's which has raised some eyebrows with myself. Varsovian, without going into accusations which Jacurek, et al have raised against them, has attempted on many occasions to engage Jacurek in discussion relating to this article, only for Jacurek to remove any messages from his talk page without answering, whilst Jacurek continued to edit (revert) the article. It actually took some time for Jacurek to even come to the article talk page to discuss the issues. This looks like yet another team attempt to get rid of an opponent in a head 'em off at the pass attempt. I would suggest that this be closed off, and leave it to WP:AE to sort it all out. But in the meantime perhaps an admin could lock the article? Until such time as these editors take it to WP:RFC for outside comment. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden arrival of troublesome user Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is sanctioned and has a very impressive block log is also very suspicious to me...until now he was not evolved in this conversation at all...--Jacurek (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sanctions and block log have nothing to do with this. But I have observed this from a distance Jacurek for some weeks. And for the reasons I stated above. He called you an idiot. You called him a troll, etc. Get over it both of you. Also, the reason I say let WP:AE sort it out, is because of the same reasons I left on FPaS's talk page -- admins at WP:AE can sanction any side of a dispute, and it may be the case that both of you have been disruptive, and need to be removed from the article -- what is wrong with an admin locking the article, and you guys taking it to WP:RFC for outside comment, and both commit yourself to staying away from the article for a week or fortnight or whatever. Nothing wrong with that suggestion. Call it a voluntary sanction, seeing as that seems to be all the rage as of late :D :D There is nothing more that I can add to this, nor will I, except to re-state what I have suggested an admin should do. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arriving at the bottom of the thread, there's really not much more to say than what Mjroots & Stephan Schulz have written above: (1) this is a content dispute which needs to be handled thru the usual method (talk pages, RfC, mediation, etc.), & (2) both sides should dial down the passion & try to extend good faith. Stick to the verifiable facts & look for a some common ground you can agree on about the subject. Otherwise all parties involved might be looking forward to long WikiBreaks. -- llywrch (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this one of Varsovians aims? [[111]]--Jacurek (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? If an editor is involved in sockpuppetry there is a process for dealing with it. The issues complained of here should really go to WP:RFC and the involved editors should let the RFC run its course - if it means they all take a month off the article then so be it. There is no rush. Mjroots (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Mjroots wrote: I don't know either user, so I can't answer your question. Based on my Wikipedia experience (I've just passed my seventh anniversary here on Wikipedia), however, I suspect there was more to Loosmark leaving than the behavior or attitude of just one person. The bottom line of this matter is that we, who are reading WP:AN/I, can do little more than either participate in the discussion over the topic -- which is properly done in a RfC -- or lecture both sides about being civil -- which only is effective if both sides can distance themselves from the topic. Blocking someone or imposing editting restrictions isn't going to solve this problem; I wish it could. In the long run, someone will prove conclusively whether the Free Poles were originally invited to the 1946 London Victory Parade or not to the satisfaction of anyone who is not an expert in the matter. One has to learn that the facts will eventually emerge, to be patient, & that losing one's temper won't speed up the process -- although it might get you banned or burned out over the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this thread has outlived its usefulness, since the three parties to this dispute have immediately misused it for continuing their content squabbles. I'll only say here that I'm watching the editing of all three, and all three have already been warned under the WP:DIGWUREN clause. All three are sailing very close to the wind and may soon face sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise, but if in fact V. is an account run by somebody else as many people think, (including you right?) don't you think that if you sanction "all three" this will be exactly what the alleged sock account wants? The sock usually does not care about himself being sanctioned but has some other agenda as in this case (in my opinion) to bother and get into trouble somebody else. But anyways I would like to get an advice from you how should I approach this whole thing about Varsovian. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacurek, Varsovian was accused and cleared of Sockpuppetry before. If you have any new evidence of sockpuppetry or block evasion on Varsovian's part, you can present it to WP:SPI. While I'm sympathetic to the frustration you feel, it's not going to help your own case to keep treating him like a proven sock when that's not the case, as no admin is going to single him out on an unproven change. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article Conor MacNeill, there has been many IP addresses vandalising the article to remove the fact that the person in question is from Northern Ireland, and replacing it with Ireland. Several claims that the actors requesting that they wish to not be from Northern Ireland (see the history) and others to correct the country. Yesterday I protected the article to prevent these roving anons from continuing to do such editing since it is pretty much the only editing happening at the article.

However today I get an email from a user, User:Fireflies09 who is a brand new user with no edits, asking for me to remove the block so they can take over the editing of the article from then on, and that this would be much easier than having to go through user proceedings. Email available on request. Signed by someone with the same surname as the subject in question and (PR Representative), and from his email address. Canterbury Tail talk 15:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me; if they want to discuss changes to the article, they can use the talk page. I'd point them towards OTRS as well, if they want to pursue other routes. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What looks fine? My protection over their edits or their email? Canterbury Tail talk 15:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The protection looks fine. As noted above, talk page may be used to discuss issues. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]