Misplaced Pages

I asked above, and I'll ask again. This is about Flash. Are we extending it to include me and User:Þjóðólfr? You've provided no basis for calling for a topic ban or 1RR for my behaviour. It's also noteworthy that other editors involved in the Task Force have not backed up woolly allegations against me, yet you are continuing to try to push through a punishment. This doesn't reflect well on the project, or on the due diligence we'd expect from elected admins. --HighKing (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

HK, both you and Þjóðólfr edit warred with Mister Flash. He didn't do that alone and both you and Þjóðólfr seem to have missed the point about how serious edit-warring is taken. But I am not seeking to puinish you this is a preventative measure until you can demonstrate that you understand what you were doing wrong. Also please bear in mind 3 sysops have posted here - we're all looking for further input this section gives the community a choice of sanctions and a space to voice their opinions. I've stated above that both myself and Sir Fozzie think we should examine the possibility of wider sanctions rather than just for Mister Flash and that both of us are not sure whether you should be topic banned. I personally don't think so but I do think the wider community should be consulted. Please be clear this is for the edit warring with Mister Flash that is shown above in the diffs I found. His behaviour has been duly noted--Cailil 17:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Cailil, I have been in general agreement with you so far. However HighKing has been prepared to submit to the discipline of proposing changes at the task force rather than making them directly. He has also abided by the decisions there, something which is not the case with Mister Flash. I suggest a better approach would be to enforce use of the task force, with a ban on any aware editor (in practice that is all those engaged), making any changes prior to agreement there. You could make that more specific to editors who have edit warred, ie preventing them from making the changes. --Snowded 18:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Snowded there is nothing to prevent you from formulating a remedy for HK along these lines for community discussion. That is all I've done above (and BTW I was asking outsiders for input as User:2over0 was). However, your suggestion seems like something the community might consider reasonable. I prefer sanctions to be cleaner - from experience that's what works. But there's always a first time--Cailil 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is pretty much the practice the Task Force asked editors to abide by. With minor exceptions, it worked pretty well to a point. Twas the lack of enforcement that made it difficult to continue at times. (Leaving aside the constant abuse, the editing against consensus, the lack of engagement, etc.) If the Task Force had more discussion with the idea of creating guidelines and more editors submitted examples I think this might work. I'd certainly sign up to it (on the basis that the original rules regarding civility and no stonewalling are *strictly* enforced). --HighKing (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We musn't forget that the Specific Examples page in the taskforce was optional for HighKing and everyone involved. My understanding was that HK readily volunteered to it, as he has with all of the taskforce since it started. There is no law on Misplaced Pages to say people cannot edit the term "British Isles" without opening a discussion first. The real sense in the SE page was that it got debate away from the article talk pages, saving them from being locked for the duration of the debate (like at River Shannon when Tharkuncoll was involved, just before the taskforce started). I can't see how Misplaced Pages can actually manage forcing people to use something like the SE page though, even if it was the right approach. For me the guideline is the only solution. Until then though, we should encourage each other to stick with the SE page, and I'll try and look it more myself too. The more people who weigh in, the more effective it is. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about the task force - but is Snowded wants to put it for discussion as an alternative suggestion to mine that's fine with me--Cailil 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to restate what I said above - the diffs you found do *not* show me edit warring with Flash. --HighKing (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You also state above that you are not setting out to "blacken" my name. But in actual fact, that's what appears to be happening. You say it takes two to tango, but in this case you'll find that Flash edited against consensus on the Task Force and several editors reverted his persistent edit warring. Why pick me out - I wouldn't even be counted as the editor that has reverted his edits the most, or even the 2nd or 3rd most. Just because Flash has been levelling his guns at me for an extended period of time does *not* mean that you should apply sanctions to me. You should not even suggest it! Because less diligent admins and readers will just pick up and say "Oh, but there must have been something in it. No smoke without fire, etc". Please. Please. Please. Listen to the other editors that have worked on the Task Force. Or that I've "disagreed" with in the past. Look at my edit history - especially in the context of the abuse I've been the target of. And stop trying to, intentionally or not, lump my editing and behaviour alongside that of Flash. That is wrong and unfair. --HighKing (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

HK I am not out to blacken your name. And on an extend review of multiple pages (which I'll post here in about an hour) I've decided to alter my position. I've striken my suggestion that you should be topic banned. I however do believe the rest of eth community should *look* at your revert pattern and I suggest a 1RR for 6 months. An alternative would be a voluntary revert cap on your BI reverts per page (rather than per day). On review this is not much different to your actual practice. And if there's a problem with reverts out of order bring it to ANI or to my attention or another admin if I'm not around. I would be satisfied with that - as long as the community is. My view of Þjóðólfr and Mister Flash has not improved. And extended review of edit patterns shows Flash wikihounding you and Þjóðólfr following and revert warring with him. That's a serious issue--Cailil 23:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, peace. I accept you aren't out to blacken my name on purpose, but from experience I've seen that once someone calls you a duck (and especially an admin, and most especially here), you're a duck. Thanks though for reviewing my edits. You'd be surprised how many times my behaviour is made to fit the accusations. You'll no doubt have seen that a lot of different things have been tried in the past, including 1RR. I've no problem with attempts to try to limit disruption and I've always agreed and adhered to the community processes. But also note that a sanction pointed at me will be seen as a punishment for a breach of policy or rules, and this is how other editors and admins will view it. Context is often forgotten. Singling me out in this way would beg the question as to why? Other editors who have worked with me (and not always agreed with me) on this topic are saying to you that I'm not disruptive, I engage, I remain civil, etc. This started off talking about Flash's behaviour, and he neatly tried to turn it into a content dispute, or that he was merely retaliating to provocation. This isn't true, and I believe Þjóðólfr grew frustrated and took action on occasion when he couldn't understand why Flash could edit against consensus, revert without discussion, revert while removing references, etc, and all without any sanction. I've also pointed this out in the past to admins such as BlackKite but he retired and I would guess partially because he was fed up with behaviour such as we've seen from Flash. I'll back off this discussion now, since I'm happy that you've reviewed, etc. --HighKing (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

HK, let's cut to the quick; if you'll volunteer not to junk British Isles from Misplaced Pages again (unless its use is absolutely in error) I will never revert your edits, I will never add British Isles under any cicumstances and I won't engage in any activity that others might construe as wikihounding. Whilst I am the subject of this thread, your actions are instrumental in the debate, so it's only natural that they are also being highlighted. Do we have an agreement? Surely it's not a lot to ask that you don't remove British Isles? Oh yes, and I acknowledge that many of my posts directed at you have been over the top and uncalled for, and for them I apologise now. Mister Flash (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mister Flash, you're very much mistaken if you believe this is solely about you and me. Nor is it about "British Isles". This is about your behaviour within this project since you started. Now that your behaviour is put under a microscope and editors and admins are discussing serious sanctions, you offer a belated apology to me (under duress). I'd like to accept the apology, but I've no reason to believe it is genuine or made in good faith. I'm sure others wouldn't be foolish enough to either. BTW, it doesn't help by starting with calling for me to "volunteer not to junk British Isles from Misplaced Pages" and trying to associate your behaviour with mine or trying to make you that somehow I have caused you to behave in this way. I do not bait you, or wikihound you. Your proposal is also transparent since your stated aim is to prevent any editor from discussing any article in any way which might result in the article being rewritten and the term "British Isles" being removed. Thankfully it seems you caught the attention of an admin who decided enough was enough. --HighKing (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen disengage from one another please--Cailil 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why, and why now? I thought they are supposed to talk? I don't get all this, but I'm very concerned about it. I'm really worried about big heavy power moves on the horizon as I've invested a lot of time in BI. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Stage one of dispute resolution: stay cool and disengage (that doesn't mean don't talk ever again - just the equivalent of "break it up"). This page isn't for personalized statements--Cailil 01:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "heavy power moves". I've stated clear what I'm suggesting. Community sanctions - that's it. I believe that will solve the problem without the need for anything more. drop me a talk page line if you're worried about something specific--Cailil 01:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just worried that a big ruling of some kind will come and essentially make the guideline harder to achieve. The taskforce and SE page were needed and positive ideas, but the guideline is the only thing a this stage that is actually a 'positive' thing (in itself), and the only thing I can envisage working.Matt Lewis (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither I and nor another admin would have such power. AFAIK even ArbCom could only propose a MFD for the page - so I don't think that's likely to happen--Cailil 16:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I did try for an agreement, so carry on; topic ban, site ban, whatever. It makes no difference. This will not end here. The British Isles removals will no doubt carry on, and with a renewed vigor, since it seems they are being endorsed. I predict a never ending dispute, after all, it's been going on for at least two years already. The opportunity is here, now, to put an end to it, but the deletionists are reserving their right to continue unrestricted; the opportunity appears to be fading away. Mister Flash (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a place for silly deals. You should be careful here that speaking for others doesn't make you look like you run more than one account. When the taskforce started Mister Flash wasn't around, remember. And framing two years in terms of being "therefore never ending" looks iffy too. What about before then? HighKing actually advocates a guideline, so things would surely end with that for him. 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Place British Isles usage under the 1RR limit. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to misrepresent other editors Mister Flash - that's the 2nd time you've misrepresented me in 24 hours. For the record nobody is endorsing any content issue. This is about behaviour; edit-warring specifically. And as I've said feel free to others open an RfAr. But the community should be able to handle this--Cailil 00:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting you or any other editor. Stroll on! Is my phraseology so difficult to understand? It's the process that is currently ensuing that I'm commenting on, not you. Mister Flash (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Shouldn't someone tell Þjóðólfr seeing as there's discussions about banning him? It's more than a little concerning that this ANI, originally set up to discuss Mister Flash's behaviour, has been expanded beyond the original scope, and that the editors being discussed haven't been officially notified. --HighKing (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

He was advised if you check his talk page, but has deleted it along with other material --Snowded 13:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For outside input sanctions re: Mister Flash

As above it is suggest that that Mister Flash is either topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed) and restricted from all contact and communication with User:HighKing and User:Þjóðólfr, or site banned.
That User:Þjóðólfr is placed on revert restriction (1RR) and/or topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed). Either sanction would come with him being restricted from all contact and communication with User:Mister Flash. If User:HighKing is willing to voluntarily cap his reverts I would be satisfied with that. But please refer above for other suggestions.
Note to users related to or involved with the dispute please post in the above section entitled 'sanctions'--Cailil 00:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC) For evidence see:

Thank you for compiling this, Cailil. I think that the interaction bans are definitely in order. Additionally, I think I could get behind the proposed topic ban for Mister Flash and a 1RR revert restriction for Þjóðólfr in this topic area (so far as I am aware there is no need to restrict their behaviour elsewhere in the project). If disruption continues in other areas, sanctions may be extended. I see a smattering of worrisome edits from HighKing (e.g. , ), but nothing in the last few months that rises to the level of disruption; I think that a friendly informal warning to tread carefully in articles related to nationalism will suffice. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

HighKing has undertaken to cap his revertions and user:Þjóðólfr has been blocked for ban evasion sockpuppetry and harassment, unrelated to this topic--Cailil 03:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh? What? To what are you referring? I don't recall undertaking anything since I don't believe I have any need to at this point. --HighKing (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Must have read you wrong. What I said above I will reiterate - if you volunteer to limit your reverts to 1 per page in relation to the BI topic (basically the same as Snowded's don't revert a revert) I'm happy. This is basically what you're doing anyway but if it's stated clearly I see no need for sanctions of any kind--Cailil 17:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

modified proposal

Per the invitation above, a modified proposal based on engagement with this issue over a couple of years now. I've got the scars ....

• Mister Flash topic banned from British Isles naming dispute (widely construed) per above for a period of three months
• Do not revert a revert restriction for this topic area (better than a 1RR) for all editors once informed (similar to Troubles)
• HighKing required to continue recent practice of posting proposed changes to working group first and not making changes to articles without confirmed consensus on each change. If this is broken then progressive topic bans follow
• Strong enforcement of civility on working group pages
• Clear statement that the working group is there to use cases to create some simple rules (per Matt's comments) over the next few months)

Ideally some admin involvement on the working group would help. I'm happy to maintain the pages and draw in admin support if needed, but also happy if someone else takes it on. --Snowded 12:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be against forcing passers-by to work under 1RR just because they edit around the term 'British isles' once or twice. It runs contrary to WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, WP:AGF and is iffy as regards WP:CREEP. Also the Troubles RfAr enforcement can only be extended by ArbCom and if you want that you need to suggest it to them--Cailil 04:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the rule has been put in place already by BlackKite and enforced for a period, it helped stop the edit wars. Also note that I said "once informed" which is only going to happen if the change is controversial, in which case it needs to go to the working group anyway. --Snowded 05:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've more scars than you. Based on what appears to work, and what doesn't, I'd modify the proposal as follows:

• Mister Flash site banned until such time as he agrees to adhere to the basic WP policies that all editors are expected to accept.
• "Rules of Participation" are published. The rules will be clearly laid out and unambiguous, and be restricted to civility and processes of collaboration and how to reach consensus, as well as a statement outlining the objective of the creation of usage guidelines. Rules are likely to contain the following:

1. No addition or deletion of the term British Isles to articles without consensus of the Task Force
2. Strong enforcement of civility. Breaches result in an escalating series of blocks. Breaches are likely to include any comments relating to an editor, and not relating to the content or article at hand.
3. Editors must argee to the rules in order to participate. Activity by a notified editor who does not sign up to the rules may result in a progressive series of sanctions.

--HighKing (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have always strongly opposed the Do not revert a revert restriction ( Diffs later if my word is not good enough) In such an enviroment a reverse of this edit would result in a block. Þjóðólfr (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• HK even I think this is too complex a solution. It's really unworkable and contrary to WP:BOLD and WP:BRD to force uninvolved users to work in a 1RR arrangement. Secondly there's a huge WP:CREEP issue - this isn't a bureaucracy. The task force doesn't control the BI topic. Sanctions and article parole remedies need to be clean and clear. That way they run into the least conflict with WP:IAR and WP:AGF for those uninvolved. Snowded's solution of strict enforcement of WP:CIVIL at the task force is much more workable--Cailil 04:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not really that complex - the most complex element is the 1RR. The other rules are a heightened civility policy enforcement since the task force has been plagued by a small number of editors who refuse to address content issues and simple comment on editors instead. This has to stop. And the final "rule" is to prevent editors refusing to work within the Task Force and decide to run solo. I'm happy to drop that restriction. There's very little between Snowded and my proposals. As Snowded stated, the "no revert of a revert" restriction appears to prevent many of the types of edit wars we've seen. It was only after Black Kite retired that we say a return to this behaviour due to a lack of enforcement (and some admins disagree with it).

Passers-by haven't been a problem in the past. One of the main benefits of using 1RR and essentially slowing everything down, means that editors get a chance to consider the change and to reflect what edits should be made, if any. Disagreements can be played out at the Task Force rather than at the article itself. If a passer-by innocently makes a change that someone disagrees with, it's not a big deal to point them to the discussion on the Task Force. The 1RR is to prevent article disruption until a consensus emerges. Simple.

Your point about WP:AGF, WP:BRD, WP:BOLD, and WP:CREEP is a noble one, but fails to take into consideration the fact that we started out there, and ended up here. The Task Force was set up to create guidelines. The SE page was set up to move the discussions away from the articles, and essentially to get consensus *before* changes were made. My initial concern is that this was a form of censure and against policies e.g. WP:BOLD, etc. I agreed because the alternative was to carry out discussions on numerous article Talk pages. If an editor is going to edit around "British Isles", it is best if we have guidelines, and these are best formed centrally. --HighKing (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

First, if you want, as Matt does, to propose a chnage to the WP:MOS - you need to do it there. Second whether you realize it or not the Task Force has been used as a site for dispute resolution. Users uninvolved in a dispute don't need to behave as if they are/were. Third, users outside of this dispute would tend to say that the movement away from from AGF etc is not a failing of the policies. The reason this needs community input is becuase you are *all* too close to it. Finally if you want/need a complex solution you should go through ArbCom who will take the time to weigh the long term effects and policy implications etc with the history of behaviour of those involved--Cailil 17:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on please

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

I have information regarding User:Þjóðólfr, who I have very good reason to believe is a sock of another editor with an extensive prior history of edit warring in related areas, including twice being put on probation from an ArbCom case. I don't have sufficient time to prepare a SPI case today but it will be done tomorrow. As the result of the SPI case should have a direct bearing on the sanctions here, I request any decision is put on hold until then. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

...Hmm, I remember your last melodrama...who was proved to be the liar? Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)... Oh it was you!

Open a WP:SPI if you can provide evidence--Cailil 16:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Proofreader77 Indef Block consensus review.

New proposal

• Proofreader77 is restricted from threatening or alerting other users of "pending" or "potential" arbcom cases unless alerting them of a case already filed, nor can Proofreader77 ask anyone(on or off wiki) to do this for him.
• Diff gathering by Proofreader77, or any user they ask to help them(on or off wiki), must take place on a sub-page in Proofreader77's user space or user talk space. It may not take place on his user page or user talk page.
  • Under no circumstances shall other users be made aware of this page by Proofreader77, or anyone that Proofreader77 has asked(on or off wiki).
    • This page shall not be linked by Proofreader77, or anyone they have asked(on or off wiki), from his talk page, or his userpage. He can easily save a bookmark and watch the page if he wants to keep tabs on it.
  • Should the arbcom case in regards to this page not be filed within a timely manner, then the page may be subject to deletion.
• Should any of these restrictions be violated, then Proofreader77 is blocked for (insert good amount of time here).

Per Ks, I have revised the restrictions and tried to outline everything. I believe that sums things up. As the writer of this, I obviously support.— Dædαlus 06:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Of course Proofreader77 is able to prepare a case for arbcom, and is able to gather evidence for a likely case in a subpage. However, the irritatingly high noise-to-signal ratio is a problem: please stop talking about proposed arbcom cases, and please stop repeating points that have irritated other editors. It is disruptive, and leads to total time wasting like this discussion (which will not be totally wasted if we can achieve a consensus to reign in Proofreader77's talk page drama). 07:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC) signed correctly this time, sorry Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you fix your sig? I don't want to do it for you, as I think you might want to. c.c — Dædαlus 07:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The first proposal about not threatening ArbCom cases makes sense I suppose, but I don't understand the second bit about keeping diffs gathered on a separate page. Whether Proofreader links to it or not, any other editor who checks his or her contributions (which will happen) will immediately "be made aware of" it—you can't really "hide" a page you are editing. As such I'm confused as to why doing this "diff gathering" would be less troublesome at User Talk:Proofreader77/Diffs than at their normal talk page. Even the first proposal about not threatening ArbCom cases seems unnecessary to me, though I have no problem with it. This indefinite block had significant (if not sufficient) support, and I think the next time there are any shenanigans there will be resounding support for such a measure. I'm not sure we need to impose any formal restrictions in the interim, and surely Proofreader77 knows they are on thin ice. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the bit about it being on a sub-page, this is because when 77 posts these kind of things on their talk, they are either insulting, irritating, or threatening by their very existence, such as when 77 posted that I took 5 edits to undo a resolved tag. Stating such a thing is rather insulting, as I was just having a bit of trouble with the template. There is also no good reason to record perceived flaws as openly as 77 has done in the past. Especially when they have continually threatened arbcom, but never really gone through with it.

In case the above is tl;dr: They use their talk page as a means of an indirect threat against those that are there, or some over project page like ANI, to leave, or they would become a party in his next case. There is no need for that kind of thing here.— Dædαlus 11:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, my point is just that shunting those "indirect threat" sort of comments off to a subpage does not really do anything about the problem. They will be somewhat less visible, but will still be there, and people will obviously know about them. Indeed the page would almost certainly come under discussion as an attack page possibly warranting deletion, so it might actually create more problems. I understand the spirit of what you are proposing, I just don't think it would have much of an effect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Having the page deleted as an attack page is actually a better course of action than what we have currently: 77 makes threats about potential cases on his talk pages, and as they are "pending", and on his talk pages, they can't be deleted when he fails to file any such case. If they were restricted like I write, those pages could be deleted when he fails to file any such case for a due amount of time.. and as such, going to clarify that above.— Dædαlus 20:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm unsurprised to see this editor here as the last time I was trying to deal with them Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#Roman Polanski interpreter or referee needed (November 2009) they were specifically told unambiguously they were on thin ice and needed to work with other editors and stop overwhelming opposition. That same thread includes a link to another thread of mass distraction whereby Boke, a disambiguation page, had to be rolled back by reasonable and productive editors with an immense amount of energy as evidenced at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Vulnerability of short pages to attack, UD overflow, and other issues of Boke (April 2009) . Unfortunately I see little to show that they have changed. Myself and several editors have tried to deal with them regarding Roman Polanski but simply walked away instead. I think the relative concept is WP:Competence, perhaps a line needs to be added their that even if you can spin a sentence in twelve ways and utterly frustrate all others on a talkpage does not mean you are correct or that anyone agrees with you; and WP:Hear. Gwen Gale, IMHO, has been patiently dealing with this and these editing restrictions (in November 2009) should likely be strengthened as part of this. I also feel Gwen Gale's suggestion of a mentor is a solid one that likely should be enforced for Proofreader 77 to remain. -- Banjeboi 15:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with this assessment. This user may not be here to help build an encyclopedia. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • As do I. This editor appears to be on thin ice repeatedly. Maybe a formal ban proposal...? Equazcion 04:04, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with BB for reasons (especially about Gwen's patience) I've stated elsewhere in this thread. The problem originally may have been one of ability, but Proofreader77 has now moved on to being a distraction in other ways -- which does not indicate he wants to contribute in a positive manner. However, a mentor will only work for Proofreader -- as for anyone --only if she/he wants to be a productive contributor here; I'm not convinced that is the case. -- llywrch (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a considerable amount of irony going on here. Proofreader77 spammed me out about a month ago when I raised the issue of law keeping on wikipedia. I considered his behaviour to be somewhat irritating. He was resisting the proposals that I was making. Yet those proposals were designed to protect editors from the very kind of excesses that Proofreader77 has now found himself at the brunt of. Proofreader77 nevertheless has a sense of humour and I have no desire to see anybody blocked indefinitely. I'll repeat my view that all serious editors will eventually mend their ways if they are subjected to enough 3 month blocks. It's quite simple. If genuine disruption occurs, then block them. Begin with short blocks and build up to 3 months. Three months is a long time. If they continue the offending behaviour when they come back after 3 months, then block them for 3 months again. They will soon tire of it. Could it be any more simple than that? There is no need for all these complex restrictions and probations, and topic bans. There is too much time wasted on it. And why are we witnessing so many cases of short blocks being suddenly bumped up to indefinite? It's a bit like watching traffic fines being bumped up to the noose because the accused looked at the magistrate the wrong way. I'm just glad however that Proofreader77 won't be able to spam me out on this occasion, at least until tomorrow anyway. David Tombe (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You've never had to deal with a real problem editor, have you? Repeated 3 month blocks just means we'll be blocking certain people every three months ad infinitum. An indef block is actually less of a penalty, as they can come back whenever they can demonstrate they're no longer going to be disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be making out here that pushing the block button is a major effort. Yes, I've had problems with Proofreader77, but I believe that remedial measures need to be kept proportionate. There is something seriously wrong when somebody gets blocked for 48 hours, and as soon as he squeaks, somebody else piles in and bumps it up to indefinite. Why? Why this excessive action? If they thought that 48 hours wasn't long enough, then why not 72 hours or a week, or even three months? Why go storming straight in for indefinite? It strikes me as being a case of kicking somebody when they are down. Look at me everybody, nobody can kick harder than I can. I've no objection to having a[REDACTED] jester as such. It adds a bit of humour to the project, yet at the same time such a jester needs to be strictly regulated. And I don't agree with your assessment that you'll necessarily be repeating the blocks every 3 months. Even an encyclopaedia jester will soon tire of having his jokes interrupted for 3 month periods at a time, and they will quickly learn how to be humorous in a less annoying way. And a block of any length can be appealed, so I don't follow your logic that an indefinite block is less of a penalty than a three month block. David Tombe (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully I disagree. In many cases an increasingly lengthy approach is sensible. I think this editor may need some exceptional intervention but do note they have been blocked a few times lately. Having been frustrated by their winding up the talkpage on a BLP for months to frustrate any change, no matter how insignificant is just my experience. It was a colossal waste of energy driving away the very editors we want to be using a talkpage to make significant improvements, their involvement wholly frustrated and in some cases rolled back improvements. Court jesters, fine we can use a few. Humour? Great, no problems there. But disruption remains disruptive and whatever their goals here they seem rather incapable of adhering to community and collegial approaches to editing. We really don't want to encourage intellectualized battlegrounding. Just because other editors give up in frustration doesn't mean the oppressive side's view is correct. This has been played out many times going back almost a year if not longer. If this is a social experiment of theirs put a fork in it and call it a day. Having said all that it seems their block was reinstated to just the original 48 hours. If they don't show a remarkable about face to working with other editors then editing restriction and topic bans are in order. Roman Polanski remains a BLP mess but I won't bother until Proofreader77 is off that article altogether. Generally blocks should increase incrementally, but as in this case several blocks that likely should have occurred didn't. I've seen this before where the right people didn't bring an editor's behaviours to wider attention in the right way. And ... the situation grinds until it hits a breaking point and then looks like it's an over-reaction. The initial case could have/should have been presented in context of months and volume of disruption - "what is the best way forward". It wasn't so here we are to pick up the pieces and mop the mess. Maybe Proofreader77 can explain where they're coming from and how they will bring their eccentricities in line with community standards without the spin, poetry, etc. -- Banjeboi 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I was only pointing out the need for proportionate action. As regards the case of Proofreader77, my opinion is that you weren't hard enough on him when you needed to be, and then suddenly you went over the top. Recently an editor came to my talk page regarding problems with Proofreader77. He had raised the issue on a noticeboard, and if I recall correctly, the admins turned the tables right around on him, ultimately leading to a block, and Proofreader77 got off scot-free, no doubt with a smile on his face. Turning the tables on the person complaining seems to be a cowardly tactic which is rife on wikipedia. Hence you gave Proofreader77 a licence to continue with his behaviour. And suddenly then you clobbered him hard, and a trail of discord has been left along the way.

What you should have done was listened carefully to the complaints that were being made against Proofreader77 back in January and taken heed. A block for a week or two would have eased the pressure at the Roman Polanski article, while at the same time allowing Proofreader77 a chance to think it all over, knowing that he would be returning again. Had the cycle repeated often enough, I can assure you that he would have tired of it unless his sole objective was to become the first[REDACTED] editor to get a block record which carries on to a second page.

But to let him off scot-free and encourage him, and then to block him for 48 hours when he's not expecting it, and to suddenly bump it up to indefinite because of some talk page edits serves no purpose other than to wind him up. Why should his talk page edits have been a problem to anybody? I don't habitually look at Proofreader77's talk page and if nobody else did either then they wouldn't see anything that they didn't like.

Apply blocks proportionately and fairly when they are required, and there will be alot less discord on wikipedia. David Tombe (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I hear you and generally agree however in practice a lot of problems are ignored until they boil over. In Proofreader77's case(s), IMHO, it's never a simple read and it's always WP:TLDR. -- Banjeboi 18:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. When a user dances on the boundary between what is permitted & what is not, it can be hard to see whether that is due to simple naivette or careful malice. And Admins who take a firm stand in one instance should always step back & let another Admin, who has fresh eyes & no vested interest handle the next. In this case, however, I'm finding it hard to continue to extend good faith to Proofreader77. -- llywrch (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you must never bang the door totally in someone's face, and that is what an indefinite block does. That's how you wind people up. If he really is being big trouble, and has been so for a long time, then block him for 3 months. If he starts again as soon as the 3 months is up, then block him for another 3 months. I assure you that he will get the message, and although he may be angry at the lengthy blocks, he will not have had the ultimate insult of having had the door shut completely in his face, and he will know that he will ultimately be allowed another chance when the period expires. Even Jimbo Wales himself has expressed the opinion that any punitive action should not exceed one year. I personally think that 3 months at a time is adequate, but there are still many admins and arbitrators who are dishing out indefinite sanctions. This needs to be stopped. Ironically, it was on this very issue that Proofreader77 spammed me out when I raised it on Jimbo's talk page in December. All Jimbo needs to do is set the software that blocks can't exceed a certain maximum length of time. That will remove alot of discord and alot of indulgence. A week long block in January would have sufficed, but instead they preferred to wind up Tombaker321, no doubt leaving him totally sour about the project. David Tombe (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please indent your replies so we know who you're talking to?— Dædαlus 21:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You "assure" us he'll get the message, huh? Forgive me for not being so naive. Indef is not this "ultimate insult" you claim it to be, and your indefinite rolling blocks are useless. Personally, I think we shouldn't have blocks that automatically release after 48 hours. If we're blocking someone for more than two days, something is wrong. An indef says, "we'll let you edit once you demonstrate an understanding of what a collaborative editing environment is." That's it. If you find that insulting, I'm not sure what to tell you. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked sanction proposal

After tweaking Deadalus' proposal:

1. Any user who appears to be acting in such a manner as to circumvent the effect and/or spirit of the following restrictions may be sanctioned appropriately at the acting admin's discretion.
2. Proofreader77 is prohibited from
   1. asking anyone (on or off wiki) to act in a manner that would circumvent the effect and spirit of the following restrictions;
   2. threatening or alerting any user of "pending" or "potential" arbcom cases, except where notifying an user of a case that has already been filed.
   3. using his user page and user talk page for the purpose of diff gathering. Diff gathering, if any, may only take place on a subpage in Proofreader77's user space.
   4. linking such subpages anywhere on-wiki, or making any user aware of the existence of such subpages, on or off wiki.
3. Should the arbcom case in regards to such subpages not be filed within a timely manner, then the page may be subject to deletion.
4. Should any of these restrictions be violated, then Proofreader77 may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator, for up to one month in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.
5. Administrators are not permitted to reverse or modify actions taken under this set of restrictions without explicit authorisation to do so by the acting administrator, or a clear community consensus to do so. Taking action under this set of restrictions shall not constitute involvement for the purpose of future such actions.

I think that sums it up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Number 4 is too bureaucratic (it could be completely eliminated), and number 5 is trying to take an opinion on the Gwen Gale/Tan issue and make a rule about it. Tan | 39 03:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly didn't have any "Gwen Gale/Tan" issue in mind when tweaking this; nor have I ever wanted to add unnecessary bureaucracy where it's unrequired. This is simply a standard way many editing restrictions listed at WP:RESTRICT have been enacted, be it by ArbCom or the community. It's just a clear definition of what each thing means for the purposes of this restriction so admins are firmly acting within certain limits, yet are also given a broad level of discretion - leaving the definitions open to general site norms would simply mean more of the time and space taken to debate what means what as there is no set definition; I think one of the more useful points of having a restriction is to reduce the unnecessary time and space that would otherwise be taken. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I don't think I really need to explain myself here. I have already done so several times above.— Dædαlus 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Motion to end this

Given the latest developments , he was indef blocked by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Pcap ping 07:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this may be wise as long as action over there actually happens which we cannot force. Is there a means to track this to ensure it is sussed out there and if not addressed here? -- Banjeboi 07:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked by an admin, not by ArbCom. Pcap ping 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes but the issue is there right now and Proofreader77, IMHO, shouldn't have to defend themselves on two fronts when we have an elected body of generally dispassionate editors at Arbcom looking into the issues. My only concern is that if they don't take action it is revisited here to address the concerns raised. 07:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The community is sorting this out here so there is no good reason to close this off, particularly when ArbCom have pretty much declined the case. The above sanction proposal is for enacting, should Proofreader77 be unblocked again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think then that the above needs to be severely tweaked to take on board prior concerns not just the no legal threats parts. -- Banjeboi 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to continue tweaking with the community, though I'd need a concise list of the specific concerns that have not been addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the editing restrictions from last year remain relevant and some additional points may be useful here in one form or another. Not sure how all can work or - likely - simplyfying so everyone can easily digest these:

A. You are to follow the spirit of not Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering, specifically admonishing the absence or encouraging formal proceedures, using legal language needlessly and conducting editing as if Misplaced Pages were a courtroom.
B. In the spirit of WP:Talk - "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration." - talkpage posts are to remain clear, unambiguous and easily understood by all editors. Talkpage contributions should be no longer than 1000 bytes (or 100 words, whichever is easier to gauge/enforce) and no more than 5 contributions per day to any one talk page except your own userspace. Any editor may use {{collapse}} or alikened templates to redact the breaches.
C. You are not allowed to use non-community standardized formatting anywhere but in your own userspace. Boke was an example of this which made normal editing nearly impossible. Poetry, specifically meta-discussions on other users seems antagonistic and unhelpful. Do this off-Misplaced Pages if it must be done at all.
D. If you seek and successfully obtain mentorship for help with evidenced idiosyncratic style and make meaningful progress improving your communication skills, these restrictions may be lifted by a consensus of editors.

I think that covers the areas I've seen. I'd like to ensure that the end product is easy understood by us now as well as the next folks who come new to the situation. -- Banjeboi 10:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This indefr block is as good as the last fucked up one. Who the fuck cares if Proof wirtes in Poetry. What policy did he violate by posting a idosyncratic post at arbcom. SHOULD HE HAVE GROVELED MORE? That's sure what it looks like from this end, indef blocked because he actually followed through and posted on the Board. Make up you fucking minds, first you say he shouild and when he does you indef him again. I wish to hell people, meaning blocking admin start laying off the block button for frivolous reasons. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Writing in poetry is, essentially, giving the middle finger to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So is borderline stupidity but it is tolerated in Mass Force here. This is a personal dislike not a detriment to wiki. 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC) comment posted by User:Hell in a Bucket

It depends on whether the "stupidity" is willful or not -- and even if it isn't, I'm in favor of considering serial incompetence to be disruptive. As for the current case: writing in poetry cannot be considered as anything but a willful act, a deliberate slap in the face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Writing in poetry is one thing, however, writing in poetry to specifically insult other editors isn't allowed.— Dædαlus 21:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's more than that. If you occasionally write a poem in a light-hearted and friendly exchange with another editor, or use it to defuse tension, that's one thing. If you write a poem in a situation that calls for a straight-forward explanation, then you're being disruptive, whether or not the poem contains a personal attack, which is a totally seperate transgression. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to answer HiaB's question, even if it means beating a dead horse. Nobody cares if another Wikipedian writes poetry as part of how she/he communicates with other editors -- in itself. (If you can write readable, or even entertaining, poetry, I welcome you to do so.) But with Proofreader77, the problem has been that she/he fails to respond other people in an understandable way, & her/his sonnets only compound the problem. It's the equivalent of an instance where you ask me why I made such-&-such an edit, & I start talking about the time I met Ward Cunningham. All very nice, you reply, but what about that edit I made, & I continue to talk about Ward, & you rant at me for being unresponsive -- at which point I post a sonnet. What you have is an example of dealing with PR77: she/he appears to have a valid point, but fails -- almost stubbornly -- to engage other users in a productive -- or even useful -- manner. At this point, I feel the best that can be said about this person is that PR77 suffers from Asperger's Syndrome; at worst, we have a troublemaker. If you disagree with my opinion, feel free to offer to mentor Proofreader77; but I think your time & energy would be better spent on anything else. -- llywrch (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything else aside, I find it hard to believe anyone could honestly argue Proofreader to be an asset to the aim of building an encyclopedia. There's no other way to see it – the vast majority of his energy here is spent engaging in abstruse rhetorical experiments on talk pages that, oddly, prevent any actual communication from taking place. He's obviously heard that this is a problem, but won't (or can't) address it.--Cúchullain /c 21:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

All that aside, I would rather keep this open in the event that he is unblocked, in regards to the proposed restrictions above.— Dædαlus 21:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I support the block (as I did previously) and strongly enjoin other admins to not unblock unilaterally. The problem some people had with Gwen Gale's previous unblock (though an equal number supported it) was that it did not provide a significant rationale, and was essentially overturning the action of another administrator who had only blocked for 48 hours. Now that original blocking admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, has blocked indefinitely and provided a clear rationale. This action is fully within an administrator's purview and should not be reversed lightly. Of course if there is a strong consensus against it, or if the Arbs want to reverse it and have a case (which seems unlikely) that would be different, but this is not the kind of block where another admin can waltz by and say "I don't like that, unblocking." If there are not significant objections in the near future this thread should indeed be closed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Having a fairly large reservoir of good will towards PR77, I've taken the time to look thru the initial dustup with Rod, the AN thread, the ANI thread, and the RFAR. I believe, as usual in cases like this, that this is something that spiraled out of control, and that the fault for that does not lie with any one side alone. PR77 could have handled this better, but several people need to rethink their definitions of "disruption" and "personal attacks". I do not believe any of PR77's comments are "mean"; and I take his description of what happened in good faith: he tried to be lighthearted, was slapped in the face for it, and things went downhill from there.

  It bothers me that some of the same people who find his sonnets to be disruptive to communication seem to believe that the block button is somehow not disruptive to (and, indeed, is a satisfactory replacement for) communication. I find it annoying that he has been insulted by several people, but he is blocked for mocking someone. I find it annoying that we are going to block someone for "disruption" when what we really mean is "we find him sufficiently not like us".

  So, in spite of the tide being against this, I would propose and ublock, contingent on:

  • An assurance that based on feedback from the community, PR77 limit his poetry to places he knows it will be appreciated (my talk page, for instance), or to pages in his user space. He can link to these if he wishes to put his poetry "on the record"; people can choose to ignore it or read it, as they wish.
  • There is no limitation of PR77's ability to file an ArbCom case; reciprocally, PR77 stops talking about this potential ArbCom case until it actually happens.
  • PR77 and Rod endeavor not to cross paths for a while. Not as part of some formal interaction ban, but as a gentleman's agreement.
  • PR77 is free to assemble diffs that he plans to use in an ArbCom case on his talk page, or on a subpage, with no interference. If no case is forthcoming in 2-3 weeks, he takes it off-wiki and the page is deleted.
  • The sanction proposal above be rejected.
  • A little more good faith be extended to PR77; I see a lot of assumptions of his motivations above that do not jive with my own interactions with him.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd maybe be more inclined to support unblocking if you or some other admin were essentially willing to take personal responsibility for Proofreader77's editing going forward. That is to say that you would handle any future problems/complaints that come up, discuss issues with Proofreader as they arise and get that editor to stop certain behavior if it's problematic, and if necessary reblock in the long run. I say this because your comment seems to suggest that you believe Proofreader77 has something to contribute to the project (beyond original poetry, which even if valued by some is not really what we're looking for in terms of contributions). I scanned through the last 2,000 or so edits going back a couple of months, and aside from some minor reversion on articles Proofreader seems to be here mainly to make comments that he or she finds amusing and generally stir up drama (in both the Misplaced Pages and literary senses). I view editors like that as a severe drain on community resources (witness this thread, another one on AN, and a prospective ArbCom case) and think we need to be better about showing them the door when it seems clear they are not really here to help us write an encyclopedia. However I'm also a huge believer in WP:AGF and appreciate that you have a larger well of that with respect to Proofreader than I do. I think unblocking risks (indeed probably guarantees) further disruption, but if you're willing to essentially take a measure of responsibility for that then maybe it's okay. That's not necessarily a fair deal to you and really you should only be responsible for yourself, but I think it's going to take something like that to get Proofreader unblocked, because many of us (including me) have no interest in dealing with this problem again in the future were the indef block to be lifted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

PR77 is an adult, he doesn't need me to "take responsibility" for his edits. He does need a few more people admins! to stop calling him "stupid", or infer mental problems, or tell him to "fuck off", or have the most involved admin there is block him from editing his own talk page with not a peep from anyone, or stop assuming you know his motives, but it appears he isn't going to get that right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that Rod should not have locked out talk page access and have told him so. Most people supporting the block(s) now or previously have not made comments like the ones you cite above, and the fact that some others are does not invalidate the concerns here. I stand by my original point though—many editors feel Proofreader77 has already been quite disruptive enough up to this point and are not going to be amenable to an unblock, based primarily on the assumption that further disruption would be the inevitable result. You're not convincing me that won't happen, and you're also not offering any evidence that Proofreader77 is here to contribute positively. I believe you're the third or fourth person I've asked (quite seriously) to point to good contributions of late, and so far no one has responded, which to me is telling. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To Floquenbeam: It's entirely possible that the the fault lies on both sides here, & that blocking/banning someone might not be the best solution. (Most of the tools we have to deal with problem editors are extremely limited in their effects -- even the block button, which can be evaded quite easily.) The problem is that, due to how Misplaced Pages works, you can't make anyone on Misplaced Pages do what you want them to do. Maybe occasionally in the short term, but in the long term people will work on the articles they want to work on, think the way they want to think, & behave the way they want to behave. Effective Wikipedians not only want to build an encyclopedia, but they want to work well with others. (And if they can't -- well, there are plenty of articles that need work where they can go & effectively be left alone. Or settle for wikignoming.) And if someone points to you or me that there is a problem with our behavior, & they do not explain it clearly enough that you or I understand, then if we are willing to work well with others then we need to get a clarification about the problem. In ProofReader77's case, numerous people have tried to explain to her/him the problem (including me), but she/he doesn't want to understand what it is & fix it. In some cases, we might be able to find a way to handle this, but in this case the only thing we can do now is to tell ProofReader77 that it's time for her/him to find something else to do than volunteer labor to Misplaced Pages with an indefinite ban. -- llywrch (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support the indef block. We routinely go out of our way to accommodate stupid editors so long as we are convinced they are stupid in good faith. Since this a project to write an encyclopedia, not an education project, that approach is actually not OK and will have to be revisited sooner or later. Our current way of dealing with stupidity is definitely not an excuse for dealing with other forms of disruption through incompetence in the same inefficient way.

We shouldn't have to care whether PR's unique pseudo-communication style is caused by some form of autism, by a psychosis, by having been raised in a community where everybody speaks like that, or whether it is just plain trolling. (In fact, it's not even appropriate to speculate too much about the precise reason.) It is obvious that he will never contribute to building the encyclopedia, and his attempts to do so are highly disruptive. Per WP:COMPETENCE that's enough for an indef block.

I support closing this discussion, since it is very unlikely that we will get a consensus for reverting this valid block. Hans Adler 00:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I also support the indef block and closing this discussion. After some off-topic comments on Jimbo's talk page, Proofreader77 accidentally got up the nose of an editor who was stressed at the time. Proofreader77's follow-ups since then have been particularly unhelpful and not all connected with the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Floquenbeam's suggested course of action is kind-hearted, but misplaced. Proofreader77 has had a considerable amount of good faith extended by the community, and it has not been conducive to changing their behavior. I do not think the community needs to go to great lengths to tolerate an individual who refuses or is unable to meet the community even half-way, especially when the editor's contributions to Talk pages and the Misplaced Pages domain unnumber their article edits, and when their primary contribution there is 181 edits to an obscure disambiguation page. I don't see this as a person whose worth to the project is sufficient to outweigh the problems they cause. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am getting the impression that Floquenbeam's support for Proofreader77 is not so much based on kind-heartedness but on the naive assumption that because Rodhullandemu is wrong, Proofreader77 must be right. Hans Adler 04:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Newman Luke

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#User:Newman_Luke that Newman Luke (talk · contribs) is a problemetic editor on Judaism related articles. He is busy again with a sprey of major rewrites to Judaism related articles. When reverted he repeats his edits, in stated disregard for the repeated complaints, and without engaging in discussion. I propose a 24-hour block to force this editor into discussion. I have notified him on his user talk page. Debresser (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Debresser is attempting to Game 3RR (he's just made 3 reverts), and his "discussion" amounts to nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Newman Luke (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I made three different edits, which is not four identical edits as in the 3RR rule. But that is not the issue. And what about you, repeating your edits? Aren't you familiar with WP:BRD? Debresser (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I posted a notification about this post on WikiProject Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)

Luke, have a read here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with Luke's edits. He has improved the article immensely. If there are certain statements that annoy Debresser, he should address them on the talk page.--Gilabrand (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is almost nothing good among his edits. And if there were major good pieces, I left them. This is precisely the reason that he was posted initially on WikiProject_Judaism. His points of view are so far removed from Judaism, that his edits disrupt the articles. Debresser (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And please, this is not a matter of my personal "annoyment". Try and keep your language NPOV. Debresser (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're so interested in NPOV, define "far removed from Judaism" in an NPOV way. Explain what you mean - specific issues. Newman Luke (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I could, but I think that the WikiProject Judaism discussion is the correct place for that. Here I posted only to ask for enforcement to force you to stop making disruptive edits and bring you to the discussion table. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're not going to explain yourself here, or your claims of "disruptive edits", then you should retract this section. You are the disruptive one, as Gilabrand notes. Misplaced Pages is about building and improving a series of Encyclopedia articles, not about bartering with people who claim to own them. Newman Luke (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cut the Wikilawyering, and start discussing your major and contestable rewrites before you make them. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism is where that usually takes place. Debresser (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want Wikilawyering to be cut out, I suggest you retract this section entirely. As for discussion, if you actually care to point out specific details you think are somehow factually wrong, or inappropriate, then I may well discuss them. As for where discussion should take place, have you never heard of article Talk pages? Newman Luke (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are posted on WikiProject Judaism already (as you are well aware). Because the problem with you is your edit pattern, and not any specific edit, that is the best place to discuss them. If anyone should have used the article talk pages it is you, preferably before making complete revisions, but at least after you were reverted. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is you who claims that. Where have you mentioned a single set of specific edits that you regard as specific contradictions of fact, or otherwise inappropriateness? Mention one - or don't you have any evidence to back up this claim? Either back it up with specific points you think are factually erroneous, etc., or stop disrupting wikipedia. Newman Luke (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I encountered this user a little while ago whe he had created a set of articles related to marriage in Judaism. On even casual reading, the content is heavily biased towards a source that is almost 100 years old and was regarded in its day to be biased and informed by radical scholarship. Otherwise he cherry-picks primary sources, many of which have later not been codified as Jewish law. Around these sources he spins theories that amount to original research, only rarely supporting them with appropriate secondary sources.

The user was challenged several times over this pattern of editing. He clearly has lots of time on his hands, and I have no energy to challenge every single huge rewrite of a Judaism-related article. The bottom line is that he engages in original research, which compromises the encyclopedicity of every article he touches. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

He still continues , in complete disregard of this discussion and the things pointed out to him, marking his major rewrite a "minor edit" with the edit summary "fix cites". I couldn't have made the point that this editor is being disruptive in a more eloquent way. I again request that this user be blocked for 24 hours, to impress upon him the necessity to change his pattern of editing and engage in discussion. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a minor edit, some of the cites were slightly wrong, others were duplicates, or not as well formatted as they could be. You have already been cautioned for failing to use proper dispute resolution routes - like the article talk page, and instead escalating conflicts into incivility. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. I'm sure the rest of[REDACTED] would appreciate it if you started complying with that ruling. Now there's some sort of comment about whether you should be blocked there, but I'm not familiar enough to know how Arbitration rulings should be applied, so I'll leave it up to others to discuss that aspect of your behaviour.Newman Luke (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not poison the well. Debresser (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It concluded 2 days ago, and asks you to use proper dispute resolution procedures, but you aren't. I therefore think its extremely relevant here. Newman Luke (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1. And what do you call Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism and WP:ANI? 2. This is not a Chabad related article. But all of this it moot. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You do understand that the Arbitration Committee weren't saying "use proper dispute resolution processes, including article talk pages, on Chabad articles, but do what you like on the rest of wikipedia". Why do you have such aversion to (a) using article talk pages, and (b) pointing out specific diffs / content that you regard as factually inaccurate or inappropriate for the article? Newman Luke (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you completely rewrote the lede, other paragraphs, and the section structure , it was a very major edit indeed. See Help:Minor edit about what is a minor edit on Misplaced Pages. So now you are lying as well. Debresser (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't change the lede or structure - . I just changed the format of a few cites, and combined identical ones. Newman Luke (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to admins to be the judge of that. I have on occasion misunderstood diffs. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My experiences with Newman Luke mirror those of JFW and Debresser. Newman Luke is relatively ignorant about normative Judaic religious legal practice, yet insists on creating, or unilaterally massively changing without any discussion, articles which are often filled with information from questionable sources, lacking in accepted normative sources, have subtle, or overt, points-of-view woven into the article based on cherry-picked quotations, and, almost always, are redundant to better sources, more neutrally written, more accurate existing articles. The experts at Wikiproject Judaism almost invariably are unanimous that his additions are misleading or plain wrong (for example, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_23#User:Newman Luke and Luke's response Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_23#User:Avraham). At this point, I believe that an RfC with the intent that Newman should not create or make any significant changes to Judaic articles without discussion may be appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Avraham, where is there a specific addition that's criticised? Point to SPECIFIC content you regard as factually wrong, or where others have stated the same. Because so far, you and Debresser (and Izak) singularly fail to give ANY specific examples. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid policy. Newman Luke (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI wasn't created to resolve content dispute. It is here to resolve behavioral problems of editors. Such as you. Go ask this question on WikiProject Judaism, or open up a talk page discussion as per WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Its you who has the problem, so you use the talk page - explain what specific content you have an issue with and specifically why. Newman Luke (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification: User:Newman Luke has reported me on WP:ANI/3RR. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I reported you at 13:something (UTC), half a day ago. Newman Luke (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it my fault you didn't notify me? Debresser (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Its your fault you reverted for a fifth time, after that - -, and that you disrespectfully described the revert - which deleted 2/3 of the article - as removing vandalism. Newman Luke (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Debresser has explicitly claimed he has the right to ignore WP:OWN - - the policy that forbids ownership of articles. One of the examples listed there of fobidden behaviour is:

"Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" or "Get consensus before you make such huge changes."

Now that sounds exactly what Debresser is doing here. Newman Luke (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not owning anything. You have a pattern of editing against consensus. I am just the one who refuses to be intimidated by your refusal to listen to advice and to seek consensus, and decided to revert you. Then I took you to WikiProject Judaism, and you continued, so I took you here, and you still continue, so now I think you should be blocked temporarily. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a question for User:Newman Luke: did you notice that all outside editors here and on WP:ANI/3RR agree with my reverts and tell you to start seeking consensus? (Of course somebody will now come along and say that he disagrees with me.) Doesn't that tell you something? Debresser (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus FOR WHAT? What specific content do you think is against consensus? Where has there been a discussion of specific content? And no, the editors there did NOT agree with your reverts. They concluded that you should present the specific content you thought was factually in error/inappropriate/etc., and that the article talk page should be used. Points I've emphasised above. Now point out to me the specific content you think is a problem? Newman Luke (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. NL rewrote the entire article to his taste. I posted on the talk page, and I have not received a single answer as of yet. (And believe me, I have more to say.) Is it or is it not Misplaced Pages policy to discuss before re-reverting? Debresser did nothing wrong; he was just trying to uphold collaboration.Mzk1 (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that is ridiculous. You fail to mention that its also[REDACTED] policy for people to NOT do "Revert....Get consensus before you make such huge changes". And you've had your answer on the talk page, if you'd wanted one in a hurry, why didn't you mention it on my talk page?. I've repeatedly asked Debresser to point out specific issues and he hasn't. By contrast, this is the first time you've mentioned even somewhat directly to me that you've raised a question, and I've given you an answer before even writing this. A little even-handedness would be appreciated please. Newman Luke (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Newman, there is a difference between ownership and protection; in this case, it is abundantly clear that many, if not most, people believe that your edits, over a sequence of months and many pages, are more harmful than helpful and diminish the quality of the articles relating to Judaism in the[REDACTED] project. Our efforts to maintain a high-quality, accurate, representative, properly sourced, and consensus-approved version is exactly what should be happening. If anyone is having "ownership" issues here, it is you, who, for some reason, believe that your edits and point-of-view outweighs the numerous editors and existing consensus view otherwise. -- Avi (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Avraham, protecting the version you like IS claiming ownership. It is not clear at all. No-one there yet has pointed to a single specific edit they take issue with for specific reasons, not one. All it is is general claims - massively lacking in actual hard evidence from diffs. You're just poisoning the well there. Have you read WP:OWN? I suggest you read it again, particularly this bit:

Something can only be against consensus if people have already massively disputed it. Now can you point to where the specific content/edits that I have made, or similar, were discussed before I made them and declared to be against the consensus view, because I can't see any such thing. Newman Luke (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And this bit of WP:OWN as well:

Now when are you going to address the topic - point to specific content that you have issue with and specifically why. I have repeatedly asked you to do so - multiple times even here, so when are you going to? Newman Luke (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be forum shopping Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Debresser_.26_Avraham_.28.26_me.29 Gerardw (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain how many times it has to be repeated, but the issue that most members of WP:JEW have with you, Newman, is your behavior, namely massive re-writes without discussion, creation of redundant and unnecessary articles, "WP:OWNership" issues when consensus is attempting to be implemented, and edits, that over time, indicate both a lack of understanding of Judaic topics and an inability to work with existing project members. Asking for specific content examples is neither the point of this discussion nor helpful in resolving it, is irrelevant, and derails the purpose of this discussion. -- Avi (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Tao2911: disruptive user

Tao2911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Having trouble with a tenditious user who is becoming disruptive at Adi Da.

Trying to avoid 3rr, Tao 2911 inadvertently pastes the article into itself creating a doubled article. ]

After several attempts to fix he inadvertently erases a paragraph in the lead. ]

Later he discovers that the paragraph is missing, opens yet another discussion thread titled "David Starr vandalism" ]

Replaces the paragraph citing me as a vandal in the edit summary ]

Tao2911 was warned by admins about this behavior here:]

Wallpapers my talk page with warning templates ]

Tried to report me for vandalism here: ]

Removes POV label from article without consensus, proclaims me a vandal in edit summary ]

And then proclaims that I am not useful and wishes I would just go away ]

Says "(Starr) is coming around and stirring this crap" ]

Would it be possible to block this user? David Starr 1 (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added the name of the user to this report, and I'd note that of their 1477 live edits, 1383 (93.6%) have been to the Adi Da article or its talk page. . Their 787 edits account for 26% of the article's 3025 edits. Superficially, without evaluating the edits, or those of David Starr 1, whose 204 edits are the third-most to the article, it seems possible that there are ownership issues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For background, see this previous AN/I thread from a couple of days ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have indeed been heavily invested in working on the Adi Da page in past weeks, quite collaboratively with other editors until David Starr 1 reappeared and without discussion or notice placed a POV alert on the page, with the comment "Sorry to spoil your fun". He proceeded to attempt dozens of un-consensual edits to the page, removing reams of sourced info, changing phrasing to biased POV, and trying to remove or downplay all mentions of this controversial figures "controversial" activity - mentions that are in all cases heavily sourced and cited and phrased to reflect context and qualify source POV. He has failed to cooperate or acknowledge attempts to meet his POV, adn has generally been completely disruptive. Due to his activity, I have actively sought out hard copies of many of the texts (encyclopedic and NPOV authoritative sources) that had previously been cited by other editors, but in many cases only parts available online. Having these sources has allowed me to fill out, cite, and footnote many areas previously left vague at best. I have, with the help of other editors, written the majority of the curent biography of figure profiled, and again, with other editors, significantly increased thoroughness, readability, and accuarcy of page. Simply look a version from 3 months ago to now. I have been the only active editor without admitted pro-Adi Da bias, and have been active to maintain the neutral POV of the material, which Star in particular has a history of slanting radically to biased POV. I encourage anyone to simply compare versions of the page and see for yourselves.Tao2911 (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If the above statement is true, why are there no diffs to support the claims? This is a campaign by one user to completely shut-down another users participation. Is this going to stand? David Starr 1 (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

the record shows the cooperative involvement of many. I don't know what "diffs" are, but if mean a lengthy list of links showing you to be an obstreperous and uncooperative editor, I don't have the desire, know-how, or time to make it. Again, I just suggest anyone go to page and review, talk and history - past versions of the page and current. The page is balanced and well sourced, with hundreds of citations and dozens of footnotes.Tao2911 (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive signature

see the related thread a bit south at #user talk:Jack Merridew

Jack Merridew has brought to my attention that Jack "Red Hood" Napier has been using a template for his signature — it is User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig. As Jack M. has pointed out to me, this is a clear violation of WP:SIG#NoTemplates, so I've protected it after Jack M. changed it to make it simpler (there is just no way I can delete it, it's been used too often to remove it from all the discussions).

I'm bringing this here for review. If anyone objects, please feel free to change my decision. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I replaced it with: User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier and have subst'd some of the usages; there are not many as this user showed up just a few days ago. See the thread at the bottom of tbsdy's talk and note that I refactored some there. The other Jack's talk page, too. There is also the fact that I just changed my userpage to use some dynamic behavior and this new user immediately took some of the techniques used in inappropriate directions. I've little doubt that this is no innocent noob. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the signature, and the way I was presenting it was disruptive. I complied with Jack's initial request to refactor the sig and began substing it. I also expressed intent to refactor it again if it was still unacceptable. Instead of commenting on the refactored sig, Jack changed the entire template to a basic sig, and Tbsdy protected it. Not sure if thats standard operating procedure around here, but it seems kinda wack. User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier 08:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing thirty or so edits to Misplaced Pages and user talk space. Why can't we just delete this? AniMate 08:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It can, and should be deleted ASAP; do your own checking and go. ;) Jack Merridew 08:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:DUCK. Your refactored version that I replaced was no better, just fewer alternate names in the loop. The significant usages have been subst'd and the further subpages that the thing used need to be locked down. I'm off; I'm sure this will all be properly sorted when I next look. Folks, look at the history of the sig and all of our talk pages, and both jack user pages (and I mean the implementations, not the 'look'). Jack Merridew 08:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And why cant the subpages just be deleted and allow me to make a normal sig in the main page? {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 08:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh wonderful. Now I can't even use the basic sig. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 08:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the sub-pages and if you want to personalize your signature, go to the "My preferences" button at the top of every page. There's an option for signature design on the very first page. AniMate 08:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. And thank you AniMate, for being (fairly) reasonable. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 08:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Try and edit more in article space. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not our user pages. AniMate 08:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this look like GRAWP under a new name, after all, he came on and did a lot of vandalism with "BATMAN - The DARK NIGHT" themes about it. His webpage has just the same theme on it, two quotes from the joker greet you on the front page, the name Jack Napier is the name given to the Joker, and the colors are purple and green, Joker colors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs)

No, I'm not GRAWP. If a CU is required to prove that, fine, I voluntarily submit to CU. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 23:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not; you're User:John254; Grawp's just being a /b/tard. Jack Merridew 00:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I call a huge Feathered animal on this one. _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes} 17:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not resolved, he's now signing with no links to either his user or usertalk page. DuncanHill (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

He needs to open his prefs and do a normal sig; if he's skilled enough to repurpose my code as he has, he's up to this, so omitting it is willful. And someone will have to fix the bad sigs he's leaving about. All amount do DUCK-sign. Jack Merridew 00:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not willful, I was just being lazy. I've fixed it now. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

and the litter you've left about? and note that I just fixed the above; don't use the character entities; they clutter the wiki up. Jack Merridew 00:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition to leaving a bunch of the {{SUBST:… "sigs" about, he's changed his sig in a new pointy manner. His username includes two quotation marks (allowed, but unimpressive). The sig he is posting with now is:

• ] (]

which snots up the editbox and the database. A more courteous sig would be:

• ] (]

The character entities are for html, not wiki-text; MediaWiki will handle the conversion for generated pages. "Red Hood" has demonstrated sufficient skill to be aware of this issue and I see this as him seeking to maintain as disruptive a sig as he can. As backstory, my editing history show a lot of cleaning up of this sort of thing, so this amounts to deliberately doing something that he knows I will notice and be inclined to clean-up. Jack Merridew 02:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack I was using the more courteous one until you yourself pointed out that you had to fix it. That is when I changed to the one with the "'s in it. Which one would you like me to use? Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My fault. I misread the diff above. Will switch now. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

fixed.
note to posterity; the take-away from this silliness is that the wiki-code underlying this demonstrates how to properly encode character entities in examples of wiki-text given in discussions; it also illustrates how to better present examples of wiki-text using the html tt-element and the wiki nowiki-element in monospace (as opposed to the page widening technique of using the pre-element; we now return to our regular programming;)
Jack Merridew 20:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

eh? My "take-away" from this is that as long as we continue to allow vanity-sigs, we'll have problems like this. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree ;) Equazcion 20:38, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Me, too ;) I've long been on record as opposing mark-up in sigs. Try signing a check with seven colored pens, artwork and boxes. The purpose of sigs is to identify users, not to introduce crap into the database. It's all low-grade disruption and attention-seeking. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Partly due to this thread I have filed Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drew_R._Smith. Durova 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: enough is enough

That SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) is one of Misplaced Pages's most prolific editors is uncontested: at 100k+ edits she currently ranks at about 65 in the all time list. She is not an admin (one wonders what might come out of the woodwork if Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia were turned blue), but she is known by many for her involvement in Misplaced Pages:Featured article review.

I had rather promised myself that I wouldn't edit until at least March, having been driven into semi-retirement by SandyGeorgia's campaign of harassment involving misrepresentation, manipulation, serial accusations of bad faith (User:Rd232/Notes) and even, increasingly just before I declared semi-retirement, insinuations of advocacy-based COI editing (eg at the top of this User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela_BLP_problem page about me). I've managed to avoid editing for a week now, but I have on occasion logged in to check my watchlist, and have observed Sandy's behaviour with increasing dismay, and ultimately feel forced to do something.

Background: Sandy is an editor with links of some kind to Venezuela, and a point of view that strongly supports the Venezuelan opposition. This is fine, but hand in hand with that has gone an attempt to smear sources that comment on Venezuela in terms she disagrees with, by insinuating connections with the Venezuelan government. For these purposes, Sandy applies standards of sourcing which she would not accept in any other context. I could broaden this point, but it's taken my 1.5 hrs to write this, and will limit myself to the CEPR/Weisbrot issues.

Issue 1:

• on 23 Jan the biography of living person Mark Weisbrot looked like this. It included, as the second-to-last sentence, sourced to the New York Times, that "He is a broad supporter of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez' economic policies."
• after an enormous flurry of edits by Sandy, by 25 Jan it looked like this. At this point "He has been described as an adviser to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and supporter of his policies." was the last sentence in the lead. The sources supporting "adviser to Chavez" are i) a minor Spanish source which described Weisbrot as the "intellectual architect" of the Bank of the South and ii) infoshop.org, "An Anarchist At the World Social Forum". One of these sources does not support the claim made, so the definitive statement he is an adviser to Chavez (not "some sources say" or "X claims that" - authorial claim of fact) rests on a single source. Is it a trivial claim, and a really good source? No, it is a massively significant claim, and an incredibly poor source: yet stated as fact.
• the second part of the new 25 Jan sentence is "who is described as supporting Chavez's policies". This is now sourced to two footnotes. One is the original NYT source. the other footnote is a composite of a number of sources (SYNTH alert!). Let's look at these sources. The first is USA Today, claiming (without explanation or detail) that Weisbrot "has supported Chavez's policies." Possibly WP:BLP demands better than a vague passing remark in a short news piece to stamp someone as a supporter of someone the US more or less considers an enemy, but let's leave that to one side. What other source delights await to support the claim? Some statements of Weisbrot's perhaps? A paper or two? No, in fact we have a remark in The NewStandard (a minor now-defunct online news service); a Miami Herald op-ed (I thought op-eds were frowned upon as sources for controversial statements in BLPs... cough), a Washington Post blog entry, and a magazine and website published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Fantastic sources for contentious BLP material.
• attempts to discuss these issues in detail, using WP:BLPN (Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive79#Mark_Weisbrot) and other dispute resolution, were shut down aggressively by SandyGeorgia - possibly because she knew her work would not stand close scrutiny.

Issue 2:

• Sandy's 24/5 Jan flurry of edits also resulted in a transparently WP:SYNTHy attempt to smear Weisbrot by linking him with the Venezuela Information Office, relying on a poor source of debatable relevance (National Review, making merely the vague and unsourced claim that VIO "coordinates a media response team" that includes "representatives from the Center for Economic Policy and Research") and a Center for Public Integrity report which mentions neither CEPR nor Weisbrot. But the Center for Public Integrity did feel the need to publish a response from a number of people, including Weisbrot, in response to the various allegations of people being associated with VIO. Unbelievably, Sandy summarises this as the letter "saying that their statements about the VIO were "highly misleading"." The letter is not about the VIO, it is about the people smeared by supposed connections to VIO - and Sandy seeks to use this to smear Weisbrot and CEPR, neither of whom are mentioned in the original piece!
  • The text was eventually removed from Mark Weisbrot after intervention via WP:BLPN; the same text currently remains at Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Issue 3: misleading SPI report leading to unjustified block:

• these edits come to the attention of User:Scalabrineformvp on 9 Feb; it subsequently becomes clear that he is associated with CEPR. He edit wars unsuccessfully to try to remove the problematic content. Of course the flip side of Scalabrine editwarring to remove contentious, badly sourced BLP material is that others were edit warring to reinsert it. Scalabrine was blocked on 11 Feb for supposed socking to skirt 3RR. The blocking admin appears not to have noticed that the first edit of the supposed sock (User:Constitutional1787) is 24 hours after the last Scalabrine edit. Constitutional1787 violated 3RR and was indef-blocked as a supposed sock, in addition to Scalabrine being blocked temporarily for socking. No-one seems to have noticed that the subsequent SPI Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp concluded Constitutional was NOT a sock!
  • SandyGeorgia's evidence at the SPI on 10 Feb declares that "Constitutional1787 is a new accounts, just created, that continued blanking the article when Scalabrine reached three reverts." This despite the fact that Scalabrine's last edit was 21.15 on 9 feb; Constitutional's first at 21.53 on 10 Feb
• Scalabrine is blocked 31 hours at 02.51 on 11 Feb.

Issue 4: OTRS ticket

• At 17.13 on 11 Feb an OTRS ticket is announced at Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Important_OTRS_ticket_related_to_this_article. It does not take a genius - now that we know Scalabrine is CEPR-connected - to see how Scalabrine's unjustified block led to this, in an attempt to deal with the problematic content.
• SandyGeorgia's response to this probably speaks for itself in terms of the transparent attempt to further smear Weisbrot.
• Scalabrine makes no further article edits; he comments on the talk page, explaining somewhat the OTRS issues - without, it must be said, clarifying the COI.
• On 12 Feb user:Kriswarner turns up, editing the related article Center for Economic and Policy Research, attempting to remove the problematic content. He doesn't declare COI other, but he is using his real name (there is a Kris Warner at CEPR). His edits do not overlap with Scalabrine's, who last edited that article in November.
• On 14 Feb User:markweisbrot turns up, making some comments at Talk:Dean Baker (Dean Baker being the other co-director of CEPR). Neither Kriswarner nor Scalabrine ever edited this article.
• Sandy re-opens the SPI on 12 Feb, adding Kriswarner and then Markweisbrot. Checkuser concludes (apparently) that they're editing from the same location, and as a result they're both blocked as socks. The fact that two of these are real names (one obviously so) of people from an organisation with an open OTRS ticket does not seem to have factored into the equation. Additionally, Scalabrine, the supposed sockmaster, is idef-ed for socking. (None of these 3 accounts, incidentally, received the relevant user talk block notices.)
• An unblock request from Scalabrine clarifying the IP issue and declaring "We are not interested in editing the site but it seems unfair and counter-productive to exclude us from at least providing information in the discussion, with our name and affiliation openly stated." is declined, on the basis that "you have enlisted to assist in both swaying WP:CONSENSUS, and emphasize WP:OWNership over an article. The only possible way that you would likely achieve an unblock, considering the above, is to never edit related articles again." This makes no sense to me in terms of the edit pattern noted above (accounts NOT supporting each other), as well as the clear recognition that discussion should be preferred to editing. The other "socks" remain blocked despite the new information.

Result

1. highly problematic, badly sourced BLP-related content remains, with an open OTRS ticket
2. An account cleared of being a sock remains indeffed as a sock
3. 2 accounts using real names of individuals remain indeffed as socks
4. supposed sockmaster remains blocked
5. the organisation/individuals who submitted the OTRS ticket cannot fully explain their concerns onwiki (and OTRS team does not seem to have done anything at all based on the ticket itself)

The COI issues remain, of course. But I submit that this smear campaign of SandyGeorgia's has gone far enough in how it is impacting on actual living persons; and that in addition SandyGeorgia's campaign of bullying and harassment has gone far enough. See for example her addition of a number of editors to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scalabrineformvp; and her continuing personal attacks on me (even in my absence in the last week; cf Talk:Mark Weisbrot). !Ya basta! Rd232 09:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional parts of Sandy's smear campaign, which I forgot to note:

1. Re-inserting long-deleted content at Venezuela Information Office, listing personnel associated with it. The primary reason for doing so is to link VIO with CEPR. The content was long-deleted because organisation articles do not normally record past employees unless there is some particular significance or notability. There was a talk page discussion about this in March 2009, which sort of ran into the ground in a "no consensus" situation, with an RFC proposed but never done, and the content staying out until Sandy reinserted it without discussion on 9 Feb 2010.
2. Giving undue, unsourced prominence to the role of Weisbrot in Just Foreign Policy, with this 10 Feb edit . He was the founding President, yes, previously mentioned well down the article. Sandy promoted that to "founded in January 2007 by economist Mark Weisbrot...", in the lead sentence. The source relied on is the same source previously used; and it is currently a dead link, so Sandy made this substantive change without even looking at the source relied on. Archive.org gives us this, which gives a letter from the Board of Directors with Weisbrot 1 of 13 signatories, and no mention of Weisbrot's role beyond what was previously said "founding President". Rd232 13:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this one, reading through it. Do you have a specific remedy in mind? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, mainly (1) fixing the problems created (further discussion may of course lead to changes, but BLP caution should be applied, and contentious content removed until there is a consensus that is reasonably sourced and given appropriate weight). Also (2) unblocking the inappropriately blocked accounts, subject to warnings of how to behave appropriately when there are WP:COI concerns, so that they can elaborate onwiki what their OTRS concerns were/are. However, in view the concertedness of Sandy's activities, and the vociferousness with which she has defended these BLP violations through edit warring and bullying, I think something more is required. At this point I know not what that might be. Perhaps simply (3) lots more people being aware of her intentions and behaviour would be a start. Inevitably, she will want people to put more eyes on my edits too - I'm fine with that. I've said all along in the recent Venezuela-related disputes that "more eyes are needed". Rd232 13:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused also. I just reviewed two of the articles, but I got confused as they have some of the most excruciatingly constructed sentences I've ever had the privilege of reading! However, that's a content issue. I also read this diff, but I'll be honest and this just seems to be Sandy's considered opinion. Without specific examples of the issue at that point, I'm not sure what could have been expected of Sandy? I'm not familiar with the conflict and have only reviewed the examples you've given, but I can't really see a smear campaign from Sandy, though it is evident that she doesn't like Weisbrot, but that's not actually a crime.

The only actionable thing I can see here is that two editors were blocked as socks when it's quite possible that they were from the same organization. But I'm afraid here too there is an issue, because if they are who their usernames and location suggests, there is a clear conflict of interest for them to be editing this article.

I am uncertain what is required of admins here... I can't see an ongoing edit war and I don't see any gross incivility or disruption. This looks like a content dispute. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 13:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

1) I've made the blocked "socks" issue perfectly clear. Unblocking should be subject to warnings about appropriate COI behaviour. Is the fact that there is an open OTRS ticket compeletely irrelevant? Do we have a policy of blocking people trying to explain why there are serious problems with articles about them and their organisations, without a history of actual problems being shown? Try and look at it from their point of view, and imagine it's you and your organisation being accused of being linked to a government that your home country considers a virtual enemy. Rd232 13:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well... have the accounts been confirmed to operate as individual people via that OTRS ticket, and is Markweisbrot really Mark Weisbrot? How can we be certain - is there some independent evidence or does the OTRS ticket confirm his identity? If so then I think we probably should unblock that account, but make sure that they are aware that they should restrict their commentary to commenting only on the article text and they should not edit the article. That's probably not an issue if they are who they say they are as this diff is the only edit to their page they've made, and that's to the talk page where they make it clear they've not edited the article.

I'd like to note that I went through the entirety of Sandy's comments on Talk:Mark Weisbrot and the only even slight claim you might have to a personal attack was when she said "Those are interesting conclusions; from what planet did they come?" Aside from that barely incivil comment, Sandy has admirably kept on the topic itself - as have you Rd232 - but she's never made things personal. I think that she's got as forceful a personality as myself and a similar arguing style, which is relentless and forthright, which can definitely cause upsets unnecessarily. However, I don't see one actionable personal attack, nor do I see that she injects her dislike of yourself into her commentary on that talk page. If anything, I see that at one point you apologised for something and she quickly accepted this. I just don't see a problem Rd, sorry. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 13:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well she is fairly subtle about it; it's not so much hysterical swearing as a grinding, constant background hum of bad faith accusations. Things like "NYT and USA Today are good, unless the tendentious editors scream. " (from Talk:Mark Weisbrot). I can find lots more examples if I'm willing to put in hours I don't have, but I'm far more interested in somebody waking up and smelling the malicious editing coffee. Nobody of 100k+ edits can do everything outlined above in good faith. Combine that with the harassment campaign noted (perhaps insufficiently explained; notes were for myself) at User:Rd232/Notes, and you have an editor who is willing and able to bully other editors into submission in the service of her goal of perpetuating a real-world political crusade to discredit anyone who comments on Venezuela and does not meet with her approval. That discrediting crusade, as the SPI shows, covers Misplaced Pages editors she disagrees with as well. Rd232 14:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some fairly clear statements from her recently at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp. Rd232 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

SG is not operating in a vacuum; having followed this, I notice lots of other regular editors involved, and quite a few seem supportive of SG's position. Therefore I don't see this an SG issue, but a normal and proper Misplaced Pages process to find the proper balance point in a contentious political issue. I don't see room for admin intervention at the moment. Crum375 (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Others may have supported her, but it is her who is operating a campaign seeking to smear individuals whose views and activities she approves of by virtue of linking them to a foreign government. She has done so based on bad sources, misrepresenting sources, and using synthesis, and edit warred to support that. She is too experienced to have done all this - elaborated above - in error. These edits are, to be blunt, malicious. Rd232 13:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd, calling a fellow editor (or their edits) "malicious" requires a very good proof. Can you provide a diff to such behavior? None of the material you provide above comes close to it, IMO. Crum375 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Between her campaign harassing me (User:Rd232/Notes) and her misleading edits noted above (an editor of her experience could not make this many mistakes in good faith), I consider it proven. If you know her not from Adam - or know her only from other topics, where she may be angelic for all I know, this may be hard to accept. Take another look in detail at what I laid out above, and ask yourself if a 100k+ editor can get all that wrong in good faith. Rd232 14:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I do care a lot about proper sourcing and BLP, and that's my focus. Her contributions to the project add an extra burden of proof for any allegations of malfeasance. In the your set of diffs, I find your characterization of USA Today as a "poor source" troubling. Crum375 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What I said right up this thread was "The first is USA Today, claiming (without explanation or detail) that Weisbrot "has supported Chavez's policies." Possibly WP:BLP demands better than a vague passing remark in a short news piece to stamp someone as a supporter of someone the US more or less considers an enemy, but let's leave that to one side." Rd232 15:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved observer checking in here: I think the issue that needs to be rectified is the "sock" drawer rather than the editing by SG. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

• Did you all check the Checkuser request here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scalabrineformvp. Shes accusing me, Rd232, Off2Riorob and further down, JRSP and John Z of being socks of each other and CEPR.net editors. Shes got absolutely no evidence. I haven't even edited any of the articles, just talk pages. Off2Rio arrived to investigate the OTRS complain and she accuses him of "sundenly" appearing. Do you know what we all have in common? At some point one or the other disagreed with Sandy about something related to the Venezuela issue and sundenly we're all Socks. Shes claiming to be cleaning up Venezuela related articles, and I'm the first to admit they haven't always been examples of NPOV, but shes adding POV material of her own. And if you try to point it out, you get added to the Sock list. Its ridiculous. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Outside eyes at Talk:Mark Weisbrot would be welcome. I share some of Rd232's concerns about sourcing, and have explained there; see Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Comments and sections following.
• Basically, Weisbrot seems to be a well-respected US economist and columnist. He regularly contributes to the New York Times, and is widely quoted as an expert, on a whole range of topics and countries.
• About a quarter of all google news articles mentioning Weisbrot's name also mention Venzuela in one way or another (see: Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Additional_sources). So Venezuela is evidently a major part of his work, while not representing the majority of his work, and he has been described as broadly sympathetic to Chavez and Venezuela in the New York Times.
• The matter of potential concern is that there has been a clear effort to make his BLP mainly about his views on Chavez. This would be okay if his views had somehow caused widespread controversy, and his reputation had suffered as a result. But I have so far failed to find, and have not been shown, any sources to indicate that there is any controversy surrounding Weisbrot's views on Chavez. As far as I can tell, he is just a well-respected liberal commentator whose comments are sought by a wide range of top class sources (e.g. BBC). I gather the OTRS complaint makes broadly the same point. Some of the sources used about the Venezuela issue are distinctly not top drawer: Línea Capital, The New Standard, discoverthenetworks.org, and Front Page Magazine.
• On the blocks: I do not think it is a good idea to block editors from the subject's research organisation from contributing, at least to the talk page. Clearly, COIs have to be acknowledged, and there should be no need for socking, but it is very poor public relations for Misplaced Pages to have questionable BLPs and then block BLP subjects (or their representatives) when they come to complain about our work. Given all the recent discussions about BLPs an OTRS complaint should be greeted with a clear presumption in favour of the BLP subject and meticulous scrutiny and article rebuilding afterwards. --JN466 13:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute which requires no administrative action. –Juliancolton |  14:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a mere content dispute. More evidence of Sandy's continuation of her malicious smear campaign: reinsertion of disputed BLP-related content, without discussion never mind consensus: A nice example of her serial evasiveness of difficult questions pops up too: adds COI tag which is ludicrous since no editing of the article by any COI accounts has taken place; on this questioning of relevance of the tag, says merely "I'm not the author of Wiki's COI tag; feel free to fix it yourself if you think it's poorly worded.". This is not good faith debate. Rd232 15:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Starting Checkuser procedures against everyone that disagrees with her and getting the subject of a BLP blocked cannot be considered to fall within the realm of content disputes. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the SPI clerks will handle it eventually. No need for this big drama on ANI. Oh, and if anyone feels that any blocks I made in relation to this incident were unwarranted or unnecessary, feel free to overturn them without asking. NW (Talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• COI is allowed. It only becomes a worry (and may be cited as such) when edits by someone with a COI become unencyclopedic or they stray beyond policy bounds such as edit warring or PoV flogging. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional: Sandy today creates Francisco Rodríguez (Venezuelan economist), an economist who almost certainly fails WP:PROF, but has debated Venezuela economic issues with Mark Weisbrot. To reduce the risk of deletion, she puffs him by misrepresenting the man's own page: 3 published articles is not "numerous"; 8 media interviews is not "numerous". This is clearly intended to ensure that if the debates with Rodriguez are removed from the Weisbrot page as UNDUE, they have a home on Misplaced Pages. Rd232 15:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Additional: Earlier ANI detailing Sandy's efforts to derail dispute resolution on these issues. Rd232 15:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The block of Markweisbrot

I think we probably need to look into the block of Mark Weisbrot. It's bad form to have blocked him if we can confirm he is who he says he is. Is his account identity confirmed? I think we had better start from here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the sock drawer needs to be identified and unraveled before we can go much further. It's difficult to take any of these complaints at face value until we know who is socking. Blocking of the CEPR people aside, we're still staring at a series of accounts and IP addresses that all have startlingly similar patterns of editing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This just shows how much you bothered to actually inform yourself of the situation. The "series of IPs" are one and the same user: Me, as I've said more than once on the checkuser page. The others are long established users. There is no sock drawer. Sandy is just trying to discredit people who disagree with her, thats the whole point of that Checkuser charade. I wanted that RFCU thrown out on principle since she didn't provide any evidence whatsoever, but now I actually want to see it go throu. And when the result comes, and it confirms that none of us are socks of each other, then what exaclty will happen to Sandy? I can answer that myself: Absolutely nothing. She used RFCU for her owns purpuses, to discredit opposition, which is exactly the opposite of what RFCU is intended for, but nothing will come of it. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Another inconsistent understanding of Wiki; what would you like to see happen to me for requesting a checkuser with ample evidence? We have, if not sockpuppetry, evidence of coordinated editing and meatpuppetry, with striking similarities between the editors, and some editors suddenly disappearing while others appear. Asking for a Checkuser is not a crime; it's business. If I'm wrong, you're happy, you're all exonerated, and we can all go about editing. Being checkusered is not a big deal if you're innocent; I've welcomed the times it has happened to me. Of course, I'll go about editing under the onslaught of personal attacks, failures to AGF, and misrepresentations of my edits to which I've been subjected by multiple editors now, but I'm tough :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence of anything, you saying it dosnt make it so. There is no coordination, no shared Ips, no nothing. I don't know Rd232 and never had contact with him other than to inform him that you included him in your little RFCU charede (wich you dindt have the decency to do yourself), the same goes for all the other users. All we ever had in common was that we disagreed with you, and a couple of days later we're all lumped toguether in your baseless accusations. As I've repeatedly told you before, if you enjoy being falselu accused thats "your" problem. You expect me to AGF after you started a bad faith RFCU against me? wow! just wow! 187.47.124.216 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I know they are "you", what is your point, exactly? CheckUser is for discovering abusive use of multiple accounts and IP addresses to avoid scrutiny or create the appearance of support, and there is plenty of evidence of that. All one has to do is compare a list of your contributions against that of any of the other named editors. An editor might be warned for using RFCU spuriously, but the rare times I've seen Sandy use it, there has been cause. If the CheckUsers decide there is not sufficient evidence to investigate, it will be closed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My point, exactly, is that this is a spurrious, bad faithed request. There is absolutely no evidence of anything. All I have in common with the other users is that at some point I disagreed with SandyGeorgia. Thats it. She didnt start taht RFCU to get to the bottom of anything, she did it to discredit, tire, and wear down anybody who disagreed with her on any Chavez related articles. And that is not what RFCU is for. But of course arguing with you is not gona be of much use, shes obviously your friend and you came here with your mind made up. 187.47.124.216 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd232 continues misrepresenting in his campaign against me, frequently accompanied by personal attacks and failure to AGF; TLDR. On the Weisbrot issue, I don't believe the block was heavy handed, as we have long term COI, sock and meatpuppetry going on there, and we need to get to the bottom of it. It wasn't just a sudden thing; those articles have all been created by CEPR symathizers, employees, socks, or whatever they are, and now they are being aided by pro-Chavez admins in censoring the articles. It would be good to have Weisbrot's input into his article (for example, no one has written anything about him and other Latin American countries, and I'm not familiar with his work there), but given the long-term abuse already documented, he could provide that feedback on any one of the sock talk pages, even if blocked. It remains unclear why so many pro-Chavez editors are suddenly so invested in covering Weisbrot's connections to Chavez; is there a law being broken or something that is going over my head? I can't understand why this molehill has become such a mountain, and why it is so important to remove his well-sourced connections to Chavez from the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh this is good. His campaign agaisnt you??? He had stopped editing, untill you dragged him into the RFCU mess (and you really expect AGF after that? its not an unlimited credit card), along with me and others. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well. Besides sorting the Weisbrot block and sock drawer, getting to the bottom of the serious whitewashing across all Venezuela/Chavez articles should be another big priority here. We have essentially no Venezuelan articles that aren't POV, looking like Chavez propaganda, and ownership on all those articles. I'm the only editor attempting to neutralize them, and one person can't do it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is exactly the problem, User SandyGeorgia has a very strong anti Chavez POV and is on a campaign to have any article associated with Chavez reflect her POV, any editor that is at any other position is a sock, or has a coi or some other wiki lawyering. The whole sock drawer story is all part of her campaign that look at all these socks and all these articles are pro Chavez and it all adds weight to her campaign that she needs to neutralize all these articles so they reflect her very strong anti chavez pov, I am afraid that in user SandyGeorgia's case this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Right, well, more unsubstantiated attacks and bad faith assumptions from an admin; seems to be my lot :) By all means, let's look at my editing in relation to y'all :) It's most troubling that we have so many admins who don't actually seem to have read or understood WP:NPOV. Anyway, based on something Rd232 just posted, I think I see now what this is about. The concern seems to be whether Weisbrot or CEPR or someone is actually acting as an agent for a foreign government, and that might be the urgency behind removing well sourced text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  That precise concern was discussed at Talk:Mark Weisbrot as long ago as 27 Jan, when I said " You must understand that VIO (Venezuela Information Office) is a registered agent of the Venezuelan government, and that associating Weisbrot with them directly serves to discredit him. The source doesn't permit any actual conclusion to be drawn on the nature of the relationship between VIO and CEPR - it could easily be merely information exchange; or it could be a financial relationship. The reader is left to read between the lines, and when Weisbrot's signing of a single letter is thrown in (WP:UNDUE much? as John Z notes), it's either intending to insinuate or unintentionally leaving dangerous ambiguity that Weisbrot is a paid agent, indirectly, of the Venezuelan government." Sandy replied to this serious BLP concern with "Those are interesting conclusions; from what planet did they come? There's nothing like that in the very neutral text. I have a hard time imagining how you came up with that scenario." The discussion then trailed off, largely - I think - because Sandy then accepted the removal of that text from Mark Weisbrot, seemingly because of accepting the validity of these concerns. Rd232 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, well now I see where you were heading with all of this; perhaps if you weren't so sarcastic and attacking in all of your posts, that message would have come through sooner. At any rate, Wiki is not censored, and we report what reliable sources say. If that leads some to conclude that Weisbrot is acting as an agent of a foreign government, I don't think Wiki can be responsible for what very reliable sources say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  There is nothing attacking or dismissive in the quoted post making this important point; yet you dismissed it without substantive response. Your dismissive response here, implicitly claiming sarcasm as a reason for not getting the point, is typical of the way in which you constantly misrepresent and evade. Rd232 13:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Clarification note: Off2riorob is not an admin. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• User SandyGeorgia has such a strong anti Chavez POV and has herself declared that she is on some kind of campaign to neutralize a whole bunch of articles to reflect her POV that it would be better if she did not edit articles related to him. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sir, your jabs are contributing precisely nothing to this conversation. It should be our goal to neutralize articles that display a POV; that does not mean we're trying to insert our own POV. But I suspect you know that and are just trying to stir up trouble. Please disengage from this thread if you have nothing of value to add. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• They are not jabs, they are the exact issues as I have found them to be true, my comments are constructive, User SandyGeorgia has conveyed these opinions and I am stating nothing that is not correct and as I have been involved at more than one location with this User, I will add my comments as I see them, you may not like them but they are indisputable and totally correct.Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Eliminating the only Spanish-speaking editor apparently on Wiki and knowledgeable of Venezuelan history and politics from Chavez/Venezuela articles would be quite a coup for the pillars upon which Wiki is based, such as WP:V and WP:NPOV :) I will say that standing up to all of you is time-consuming, but I suspect you'll gain more sympathy if you actually look at my edits in relation to policy, demonstrate an understanding of policy, stop misrepresenting my edits, and hold off on the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions. Separately, I would note that something should be done about the extreme WP:OWN and WP:BITE that has contributed to the whitewashing of every Chavez/Venezuela and now CEPR-related article on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• There it is again, your very strongly held negative POV that is verging on a conspiracy theory regarding chavez and CEPR, and more wiki lawyering, claims that something needs to be done about all these articles to save the world from this whitewashing of[REDACTED] articles. Sorry SandyGeorgia but IMO you should take a step back from editing articles related to Chavez, at least for a while. Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• There's something to be said about the corp group of editors who agree with you, and the number of uninvolved editors who don't :) But it would be quite a WP:NPOV coup if y'all could eliminate little ole me from Chavez/Venezuela/CEPR articles. Rio/Rob, the gentleman doth protest too much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• The gentleman doth protest to much, what rubbish, more of youR obsessive conspiracy theories. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And there she goes playing the martyr - another favourite Sandy tactic. Anybody actually bothering to use Wikidashboard will see that on rather a lot of Venezuela articles, it is actually Sandy who leads in number of edits. eg Hugo Chavez Also instructive is looking at users' top 20 edited pages: Sandy v me. I have 2 Ve pages in the top 20 (3 if you count RSN which is there because of one single enormous Venezuela-related hooha) - both talk pages. Combined Ve edits in the top 20: 263 (=1.7% of total). Sandy has both Chavez and Talk:Chavez in top 20, totalling 1800 edits (also 1.7% of total). Since Sandy inter alia claims that I don't create content, last 100 articles I created. Rd232 17:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Another personal attack; and please read WP:EDITCOUNTITIS and consult anyone about my famously inefficient editing style :) Now, as to the way we really examine articles, an in-depth look at all of the POV Chavez articles will reveal that WP:OWN, WP:BITE and WP:TEND contributed to two editors only POVing every Venezuela/Chavez article on Wiki in the several years I stopped following them, and now we see same on CEPR/Weisbrot, where CEPR.net and Venezuelanalysis.com are frequently used to present one-sided articles. And now it's more than one Spanish-speaking editor can clean up; yes, my edits on these articles have been high since I observed what was happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're very good at making unsupported claims. You do it a lot. I must avoid the temptation to respond every time; but it does mean the constant unsupported claims accumulate. Like the claim that CEPR is "frequently" used for anything other than the CEPR articles. Or the claim you've made several times that there is any connection between CEPR and Venezuelanalysis other than you hating both of them. Rd232 19:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Famously inefficient or not, the substantive point about the proportion of Venezuela edits remains: both of us 1.7% going by the top 20 edited pages, which sadly is all wikidashboard provides (anyone know a better tool?). Ooh, found a better tool, which with a bit of Excel calculation gives me Rd232 14% venezuela-related edits (in top 100); SandyGeorgia 21%. This permits some conclusions about relative involvement and WP:OWNership. Rd232 19:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See continuation at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SPI_followup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Separate admin question

RegentsPark, thanks for pointing out that Off2riorob is not an admin; that mitigates part of my question. His persistent misrepresentations of my editing notwithstanding, Rd232's involvement here is a concern. Several of the editors participating here have evidenced a lack of understanding of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Rd232 has frequently personally attacked me, failed to AGF, failed to engage in meaningful attempts to resolve disputes with me via either ignoring or removing my good faith atttempts at discussion, refusing to discuss because he's "going on WikiBreak", or ignoring direct questions put to him, and we've seen all of these editors removing text well sourced to The New York Times, USA Today and other AP sources, removing POV tags, edit warring, ignoring consensus, and claiming BLP vios where none existed, yet engaging in egregious BLP vios.

My question is-- and since I'm not an admin, I make an assumption-- is it not time to formally establish that Rd232 and John Z should not use admin tools on any Chavez/Venezuela/CEPR-related articles? User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles

I need to check out of my hotel soon, and don't know when I'll be able to resurface; hopefully I won't find more attacks on me when I do :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of User SandyGeorgia's modus operandi wikilayering and accusations of being attacked, there are no attacks here, just people that have issues with your stated editing objectives. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Considering your (mis)understanding of several Wiki policies, I'm relieved to know you're not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, actually the fact that you weren't aware or were unable to discover this simple point says more about you than it does me. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I wasn't interested enough :) Or too busy chasing my tail across all of the policy violations across numerous articles ... But while we're on the subject, could you explain why you-- a prolific contributor at WP:BLPN, didn't engage when Mark Weisbrot was raised at that noticeboard-- and chose to do so much later, after it was all settled? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Do you see some conspiracy in this deviousness? Everyone is a Chavez spy out to whitewash all the articles related to him and you are the[REDACTED] Saviour that is going to save the world from this conspiracy, hello? Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would certainly consider Rd232 an involved administrator for this topic area, but I trust that he himself knows that and will refrain from using the admin tools. John Z is not an administrator. NW (Talk) 17:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm obtuse (x 2); I should pay more attention to the admin corp :) Anyway, that gives me some reassurance about the lack of understanding of policy that has been evidenced across all of these articles, and Rd232 remains the only admin concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(ecx4) 1) I've never used tools where I'm involved - that's Admin 101. Thanks for asking! User:John Z is not an admin (doesn't even have rollback).

2) I have not failed WP:AGF. I assumed good faith for a long, long time. Since you ask, the point where AGF (which is an assumption, not a dogma or a collective suicide pact) crumbled for me (having been weakened previously) was the Thor Halvorssen incident, which I eventually concluded was the most obvious part of a campaign to smear me. Even after that, I tried to keep my concerns to myself, hoping to talk it out. Never happened - because you constantly evaded questions, sought to shut down dispute resolution, constantly claimed tendentiousness (is that not breaching AGF? what exactly is tendentiousness?) and made COI insinuations, and constantly brought up old issues (it's hard to convey just how constantly; cf Earlier ANI detailing Sandy's efforts to derail dispute resolution on these issues. ). (eg "but not feasible with so many editors spreading only these sources across so many articles (Venezuela Information Office?)") In response to this I elaborated my involvement with Venezuela articles (somewhat pathetically, really, I should have known she wouldn't dignify it with a response) how ridiculous that is.

2a) Quoting Sandy, just before I started giving up on AGF for her: "You were quick to cry "BLP violation" on Weisbrot when there was none, yet you saw no problem on Halvorssen and don't seem to see a problem on Chavez, which is contradictory editing and appears tendentious. You are quick to revert accurate changes to inaccurately sourced text (four times, without checking the sources yourself, on the Coup article, even though *everyone* who has dos dedos frente a la cara knows that reliable sources do not say Chavez was illegally detained), but slow to remove a simple POV heading from a short article, that would have taken you one second, because you were editing that section anyway. Your method of editing is revert, revert, revert anything that isn't pro-Chavez, but you rarely seem to build content or neutralize content. In other words, what I see is an editor showing all the signs of tendentious editing. Your bite-iness and ownership tendencies chase off other editors, because your edits support JRSP's POV, so it's usually two against one. Now, JRSP clearly has a POV, but he's not hard to work with; when policy is pointed out to him, or sources are supplied, he backs off and doesn't edit war to enforce his POV; he does discuss, is not rude, and I've collaborated with him successfully on several articles, where between the two of us, we were able to respect each other's work and balance articles. You, on the other hand, have edit warred across almost every article where I've observed your work, have practically forum shopped when you didn't get the answers you want, harrassed with me the "libel" statement, don't seem particularly aware of policy or guideline or willing to read sources, and are quite a bit ruder than JRSP (undue much? is a sarcastic edit summary, and not conducive to collaborative editing, but that's your style ... noting that JRSP has a POV, but doesn't edit like that). In other words, I see an editor who edits Venezuelan content not to build articles, but to impose a specific point of view ... classic WP:TEND. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)"

In quoting Sandy here I unfortunately repeat another misrepresentation ("revert accurate changes to inaccurately sourced text"), the details of which are at the top of User:Rd232/notes - for those who have far more interest in this than can possibly be good for their health. Rd232 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

2b) For those who care, the Thor Halvorssen incident played out like this. i) At Thor Halvorssen Mendoza I move a paragraph from one place to another. In response, Sandy makes no edit, nor discusses on talk (merely posting a reference to WP:BLPN), and at BLPN declares "Rd232 again (see Mark Weisbrot thread above). In this edit, Rd232 repeats selective info from Thor Halvorssen Hellum, (Sr. vs. Jr.) in a BLP that now reads as an attempt to smear Thor Jr. with allegations about his father, Thor Sr., although the Thor Sr. article is already linked and info about Thor Sr. belongs in and can be explored in more detail in his article." Despite repeated requests on her talk page and at BLPN and elsewhere (eg RSN), Sandy never explains the alleged "smear", but repeatedly brings up the issue later (eg at WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis ). Whatever it was was apparently fixed by another editor (Sandy declined to fix the "smear" herself - an interesting approach to handling alleged WP:BLP problems) moving a few phrases aboutSandy then keeps bringing it up as a stick to beat me with, still not explaining the supposed problem: mentioning again, in unrelated thread, 31 Jan yet again not explaining and finally some explanation, 2 Feb. The explanation (apart from being wildly implausible) in typically misrepresentative fashion draws on a comment I made the day after the edits were made which she later declared had fixed the problem. Rd232 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Another TLDR misrepresentation, taking over in a separate thread. I've got to check out of my hotel; please don't let me interfere with the mischaracterizations of my edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I presume you will come back when you have time and address the unsupported claims of misrepresentation. Because I would totally expect you to just never bother coming back to it and hope that everyone around forgets. This is one of your various tactics (I should number them for convenience, perhaps) - simply not responding to issues you have no answer for. Which is part of the pattern demonstrated above! I'll perfectly well allow that you can't respond now; but so very frequently you simply do not respond at all to issues you have no answer for. Feel free to make an exception here, when you have the time. Rd232 19:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of rollback by Rd232

I am wondering if this rollbacking follow the guidelines of WP:ROLLBACK. --Defender of torch (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would. But there is no need to come running here first. Could you please discuss this with him on a talk page somewhere? NW (Talk) 18:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Talking with him doesn't usually work; he claims BLP vios where none exist, and uses that to revert well sourced edits. Rd232 is now edit warring at Venezuela Information Office and Center for Economic and Policy Research (maybe others). In the Manuel Rosales egregious BLP vio, he's already demonstrated a less-than-firm grasp on BLP, and doesn't respond to consensus on these articles. Additionally, very well sourced text (New York Times and USA Today) has now disappeared from Mark Weisbrot, in spite of no consensus to remove that text. WP:TEND is everywhere here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's compare notes on the handling of Rosales and the handling of the other BLP issues. i) Did I declare contentious claims as fact, as you did? No - it was written as "X reported that Y claimed Z", not "Z". ii) did I edit war to include the material when it was challenged, as you have repeatedly done? no. iii) did I seek to shut down debate/DR on the issue, as you have done? no, I sought it out by posting at BLPN. iv) did I bang on about your misrepresentations (User:Rd232/notes) at every opportunity, regardless of relevance, as a stick to try and win unrelated arguments? no. Finally, as to the egregiousness of reporting the Rosales claim (which incidentally I avoid repeating here - you were so concerned about the egregiousness that you repeated it at RSN...), you claimed at RSN not to able to find any reliable mentions; you can't have looked very hard because in seconds I found the claims were reported by the Miami Herald; (El Mundo), and, er, that bastion of Chavismo, El Universal . The egregiousness of the text should also be contextualised by noting that the claim lived unchallenged from October to January, and that it was added to the German Misplaced Pages entry in September (not by me - I pop by occasionally but hardly ever edit) and remains there to this day. Rd232 21:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Both the New York Times source and the USA Today source, and the information cited to them, are still in the article; they are refs 10 and 11. The wording implemented is one that you did not object to when I proposed it to you earlier today; you just thought that the "other camp" would object to it. That has not happened. Otherwise, what I have taken out is a bunch of primary sources, mostly from Weisbrot's website, a point that was discussed as well: "Then the reference to his Senate testimony should also be removed, under the same criteria, unless secondary sources mention it." In an article as contentious as this one, it is best to stick to mainstream secondary sources, such as the NYT and USA Today, as much as possible. --JN466 19:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I did in fact immediately afterwards move the material to talk - despite it being so obviously unsuitable. If you want to discuss it further, the talk place is the place to do it. If you think I'm going to be unreasonable, that's what dispute resolution is for. (If there is one really consistent pattern in these conflicts, it is that I am always willing to talk more and to pursue dispute resolution, whilst others - let's identify them as those who falsely label me "pro-Chavez" - generally are remarkably eager to close down debates, end discussion, walk away from discussion, undermine content dispute resolution by complaining at length about unrelated alleged behaviour and content issues, etc. Rd232 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Success of Wiki pillars

Wiki is censored, and cleansed, WP:V and WP:NPOV are thrown under the train, and Wiki is censored. Mark Weisbrot is now "neutral" according to someone, but not Wiki policy. All well sourced text is now gone, along with all mention of the numerous publications for whom he writes in this cleansed version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• See the article talk page. --JN466 18:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• SandyGeorgia had inserted, last month, the information that Weisbrot

  "has written for and been interviewed by online magazines such as SocialistViewpoint, Solidarity, a "an independent socialist organization", and Alternet."

• I think the subject could be forgiven if they felt here that Misplaced Pages was trying to tar them with the socialist brush. The evidence that Weisbrot writes for SocialistViewpoint and Alternet boiled down to the presence of the same article by Weisbrot on both sites: "Labor Day 2003: Nothing to Celebrate". According to , this was published through Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services and appeared in the San-Bernardino Sun, August 30, 2003, as well as the Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL) on September 1, 2003. It is still present on the Sun Sentinel website today: (albeit with a different headline). So Weisbrot wrote for a syndicated news service, and these websites picked the article up from the news service. Now the evidence for "Solidarity": The interview on the socialist Solidarity site begins "Suzi Weissman: And Welcome back to BTS". It did not originate on the Solidarity site either but is a transcript of an episode of this radio show broadcast on KPFK radio.
• That is why I removed the information that Weisbrot "has written for and been interviewed by online magazines such as SocialistViewpoint, Solidarity, "an independent socialist organization", and Alternet." I think that was the right thing to do, especially given that the subject had complained of unfair coverage. --JN466 20:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the many irritating things about ANI is the propensity for someone to shut down a thread just after one of the main participants has stated s/he won't be available for a bit. So, I'll post my apology to JN here anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This thread was archived, then unarchived, so I've moved the above post to the correct section. Additionally, the issue of organizations for whom Weisbrot writes has now been cleared up on article talk (after another good dose of bad faith rants were aimed at me for implementing a consensus change to the article about the organizations for whom Weisbrot writes -- thanks JN for reviewing old threads and clearing that up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure. Of the three news outlets above, one (AlterNet) has been restored to the article, with bona fide sourcing (Weisbrot's own CEPR website). A couple of others not involved in the above edit have been restored as well. SocialistViewpoint and Solidarity have not been restored, as they were merely republishing material originating elsewhere. --JN466 12:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrator viewpoint

This needs to get toned down and a liberal dose of AGF applied to all parties, about everyone not already confirmed by CU to be a sock. SandyGeorgia smelled socks, asked for SPI/CU, got same, which found some sockpuppetry. There's no sign so far that the other long term editors/admins involved are involved. This also is apparently a content weighting issue, which would seem (absent a clear policy violation by either side) to be an Article / Topic RFC problem rather than ANI. Please take the rhetoric down a few notches, and consider what a more appropriate venue might be to continue this away from ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The SPI Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp cleared one editor of socking (User:Constitutional1787); for some reason this editor remains indeffed. The SPI concluded that one editor (User:Scalabrineformvp) had created two socks, User:Markweisbrot and User:Kriswarner - an excellent example of naive use of checkuser. What kind of sockmaster creates two aliases using the real names of people associated with the relevant articles (hence COI issues), and uses those socks entirely independently of each other and of the "sockmaster"? It does not take a long look at the edit histories to divine 3 people in the same location. (Given that the accounts have not supported each other in any way, claims of meatpuppetry are so far equally off base - though this would need to be monitored in future.) User:Kriswarner managed to get unblocked, the situation being acknowledged; the other "sock" and supposed "sockmaster" remain blocked. Does anyone feel like, at some convenient time, unblocking these 3 accounts? One exonerated of being a sock by CU, one clearly not a sockmaster, one clearly not a sock and also the author of an OTRS ticket. Anyone? Rd232 00:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the other issues - it's true these cannot really be resolved here. It would need at least an WP:RFC/U and probably an arbcase to deal with Sandy's behaviour. I have neither the time nor the stomach for that, so if the OTRS issues are seemingly being addressed - unblocking of the related accounts would help, with whatever dire WP:COI warnings may be required - then I'd be happy to fade back into semi-retirement. Rd232 00:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

An involved editor view

Sorry I don't know if I can write here. But I would like to say that I have been surfing and trying to edit pages concerning Venezuela. The situation is simple: anybody a bit objective can see that Venezuela pages are incredibly POV. Why is it so? Mostly because of the actions of a few editors like Rd232. And when anybody tries to resist this, Rd232 reacts by attacks like this one. This is just how it is and it works very well for him. Voui (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not helpful. Most of our interaction is at Talk:Human rights in Venezuela, and I leave it as an exercise for the disinterested reader to judge who is attacking who there. Rd232 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close

This isn't really going anywhere, is it? Especially now the ongoing sock issue has been split into a separate thread (due to this thread's temporary closure), it might as well be put out of its misery. The issues are too complex to handle here. Rd232 09:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's too complex for ANI, then the next step would be ArbCom. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I really don't have time for such a next step. It's a timesink in which I could probably produce an entire paper! Rd232 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the next step would be a content and/or user RFC. ANI is not dispute resolution. Karanacs (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the first step is one Rd232 has avoided, which is user talk. He has attacked me endlessly across multiple noticeboards and on my talk page, but removed my conciliatory posts from his talk page and refused to discuss items with me, saying he's going on a Wikibreak, then constantly re-appearing and not dropping issues. Rd232 has never engaged the first step in dispute resolution, which is AGF and discuss with me, not rant at me. His refusal to discuss, continue attacking, and then ask me not to discuss because he's going on break doesn't help. If he is going to continue these attacks on me across multiple noticeboards, at least he should decide if he is or isn't retiring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's jawdroppingly amazing how rarely Sandy is able to post about me without a misrepresentation or two. Her talk page is full of discussion with me. And the "conciliatory post" she referred to I first undid (being pissed off; it may be the first time I've ever done it), then reverted the undo and archived it. And replied on her talk. Further, unless Sandy has some hitherto undisclosed authority, I have no need to decide if I'm "retiring" or not: I've marked my page "semi retired". Rd232 01:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's too complex for ANI, going to an RFC isn't going to get us anywhere either. I'm not fond of process for process' sake. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree-- RFC/U is broken for situations this complex, but a good first step might be for some admin to get Off2riorob and Rd232 to stop the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, and engage in the first and usually most productive use of DR, which is editor talk pages. The personal attacks are turning into a separate matter that probably do warrant admin attention. Other than that, I would suggest archiving this thread again, and someone doing something about the personal attacks and onslaught I've been enduring quietly for a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

you've been enduring an onslaught for a month? The comedy never ceases around here. You bullied me into semi-retirement. Rd232 01:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any chance we could talk the two of you into a mutual disengagement for say a month? This much assuming bad faith all around is getting to the point that uninvolved admins may step in rather than letting it fizzle down. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am finding all of this to be an incredible waste of time, when we could all be editing articles instead, but so far, Rd232 refuses to dialogue with me, saying he doesn't have time, while continuing to spread persistent attacks on me far and wide. This situation would be immensely complex for any form of dispute resolution, because of the extent and because of the Spanish translation issues. If anyone can convince him to stop attacking and start talking, I'm game. It's a bit hard for me to understand why uninvolved admins are allowing these documented and persistent attacks to continue. In the past, he has rebuffed my attempts to talk because he wanted to retire or he simply deleted them, yet he started this thread here. I don't see what else I can do if he refuses dialogue but continues these attacks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if SandyGeorgia were to familiarize himself with Misplaced Pages policies on content. These articles are supposed to represent a range of mainstream views, but SandyGeorgia apparently wants them to represent the types of views that one sees in down market sources like Fox News, the Washington Times, etc. I have asked SandyGeorgia to read upscale publications for sources, but apparently he has no interest in doing this. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, perhaps you missed the uninvolved admin statement about your (mis)understanding of NPOV here or here? Also see here; you're a very involved party. Also, your statement about me reading sources is completely incorrect; have you got a diff for that? Perhaps you forget that most of my Wiki work is at FAC, and I'm very accustomed to high-level sourcing. Or perhaps you missed this response from Rd232 to an article that I did make time to read before my recent travel break of one week. Or perchance you've forgotten that the first hit your google scholar search returned is one that I advocate should be used and has gone missing from the now POV article ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, Ludwigs2, the editor who commented, is not an admin. Sandy, to see if someone is an admin or not, you can use this tool: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/isAdmin/ --JN466 12:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look at arbcom's views on source quality and NPOV, Ludwigs2 was also arguably wrong in his response to The Four Deuces. Arbcom has consistently discouraged attempts to synthesise a NPOV from polarised sources and encouraged an approach similar to what The Four Deuces advocated in that discussion. See

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Neutrality_and_sources,
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Neutral_point_of_view_and_sourcing,
• Misplaced Pages:ARBSCI#Neutrality_and_sources,
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2#Neutral_point_of_view_and_sourcing,
• Misplaced Pages:ARBSCI#Quality_of_sources.
• Also see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Decorum.

Any arbitration case here is guaranteed to end with a spelling out of much the same principles. --JN466 14:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) Basically all you have done is complain the the articles are biased without providing any sources whatsoever. You complained that I set up an RfC and said that I was trying to control the article which makes no sense whatsoever. Sure these articles should be improved and I presented several NPOV academic articles that could help. Please provide reliable sources to help us improve them. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps you've forgotten the extensive list I've started (not yet completed) at User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, or that there were no changes to the article while I was traveling, in spite of all the work I presented? We discussed that on talk as well-- not sources that must be used, but sources that used to be in the article, and points of view that are now entirely absent. At this rate, it's going to be very slow going ... we've been over this already :) I left you all plenty to work with in my nine-day absence, yet nothing changed except a reduction in the lead, which can't be a proper WP:LEAD and is still unbalanced because ... there's no article to work with yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of your sources are from the Economist. Is there any reason why you do not want to use sources from academic literature? The Four Deuces (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not accurate, and this discussion belongs at Talk:Hugo Chavez, not ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, with respect -- and that is not an empty phrase, since I think you do a wonderful job at WP:FAC, and it is accompanied by some affection -- you are guilty of some of the things you accuse others of too. For example, you have many times referred to editors as "pro-Chavez", "pro-Chavez admins" etc., which if it were accurate is not unlike Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views and, if it were false, would be a case of poisoning the well. Georgewilliamherbert's advice above to tone things down, and apply liberal doses of AGF all round was good. It was by far the most sensible thing anyone has said here. You've worked on this while travelling, under real-life time constraints, without being in the best of health and, as you've pointed out several times, without support from someone who shares your view of what needs to be done in the Venezuela articles and speaks Spanish well enough. You're overexerting yourself. Much is overlooked, misunderstood or misconstrued when one is stressed and hurried, and words written in heat easily produce responses that escalate a situation to a point where it becomes unmanageable.

Much of all this activity has by now become personalized, without benefiting the articles. The complaints about how each editor feels they have been treated by the other side far outstrip any useful content discussion. Please let's remember why we are here, mend fences on talk pages, seek compromise and consensus, focus on edits not editors, and build talk page support for stable article versions that do not swallow hours and hours of editors' time. I am confident it can be done. Outside this polarised dynamic that has developed, I have not found anyone here unwilling to talk. Everyone here is capable of collaborative editing.

Above all, everyone needs to relax here. And please don't take this to arbitration, because it will drag on for months, be an even bigger time drain on you, and no one will come away from an arbitration case feeling that they have been entirely vindicated, with themselves commended by arbcom for upholding NPOV, free to edit as they please, and the other side topic-banned. --JN466 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So sensible - thank you. I would be more than happy, if Sandy would agree to it, to draw a line under everything that's been said and done in the past month or so. Clearly, we both think the other is vastly more at fault; but things have got heated enough and complicated enough that trying to disentangle all that and apportion fault appropriately would be an enormous timesink. (Arbcom alone should breathe a collective sigh of relief if we can avoid burdening them with an almost inevitably near book-length exchange...) I've said repeatedly I don't have time for an arbcom case and would be happy to avoid it, and focus on the few remaining content issues that I'm actively concerned about, which relate to the OTRS ticket articles. Once they're resolved, I'll be happy to fade away for a while and pursue RL projects. So if Sandy will back off her COI/meatpuppetry accusations (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp), we could try both taking a superhuman leap back to that forgotten time when we both were able to sustain WP:AGF in relation to each other. This will require a more drastic change in behaviour from Sandy than from me - in terms of not constantly bringing up accusations of tendentiousness and "pro-Chavez"ness and miscellaneous claims of past wrongdoing in furtherance of trying to win content disputes. But if she can do that I will reciprocate, and so if she says she's willing to draw a line under all this animosity and return to discussing content on a good faith basis, I'll give it a crack and see if we can make it last. Rd232 14:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Request from Chuck Marean for review of ban

Banned user Chuck Marean (talk · contribs) has asked for the following to be copied from his talk page:

Please move this appeal to ANI for consideration. I understand why I was community banned and I’ll do constructive edits instead. My community ban was because I did some major edits without a consensus and sufficient preparation. For example, I reworded a Current Events blurb to say the victims of the Madoff investment fraud had not received a government bailout (when the references merely stated they had lost a lot of money). I’ve been thinking of ways to find consensus, such as working in my user space and getting my edits reviewed, looking at edit histories to try to find out who wrote what I want to edit, mentioning the edit idea on the article’s talk page, and putting forth more effort when reading sources and writing. I apologize for editing Current Events without knowing for certain I had a consensus. Rather than asking, I supposed everyone would agree with my edit. I believe it is uncivil to call people disruptive or vandals or uncivil or stupid or not neutral or bad editors, and so forth, although I can understand a writer being upset when someone else edits or corrects his writing. So, to improve my editing, I could ask if I have a consensus and I could read the policies I haven’t read and I could find and read a book on how to find sources and so forth. I think my community ban is no longer needed, as I’ve just explained. Chuck Marean 08:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the most recent AN/I discussion seems to be here. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the guy who thought it was a news item that the European Union existed. Also, the issue with Madoff was nothing to do with bailouts - the user thought it was 'biased' to report that Madoff had pleaded guilty to criminal fraud by running a Ponzi scheme, and been sentenced to a lot of years in jail for it. Marean thought the article should only say that Madoff had somehow managed to accidentally go bankrupt. Basically, he did a lot of edits that inserted utter nonsense (or possibly an alternative reality of some kind) into articles, causing a lot of time end effort to be wasted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Unban request does not show that he understands the problems with his edits, and as Elen states above, it also misrepresents the proximate reason for the ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Yes, I was the Admin who blocked him. However, reviewing the WP:AN/I thread that led me to this sanction, I find that he simply didn't get it then & I have to wonder whether he even gets it now. (WP:NPOV doesn't mean that if someone confesses to a crime, experts have verified that he did the crime, & a legal court found him guilty & threw the book at him for the crime, Misplaced Pages must say something a lot less definite & incriminating.) But if he can find a mentor who will help him understand the actual problem, I'm willing to withdraw my objection. But according to the earlier thread, he already burnt out one mentor by that point. -- llywrch (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No per that AN/Bernie Madoff thing that got him banned in the first place. I'm sorry, lack of clue is one thing, but complete and willful ignorance is another. –MuZemike 18:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

But enough about . --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMPETENCE. I remember the ban and this editor just isn't able to be productive. I think he actually means well, but as mean as it is, even well-meaning people who harm the encyclopedia can't be allowed to edit it. -- Atama頭 02:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose after reading the long AN thread; I think he still doesn't get it. There's a large gulf between being bold and being completely wrong. Mr. Marean was completely wrong, to the point that not even the person whom he cast in a better light Bernie Madoff would agree with his edits. Big deal; revert and move on; except that Mr. Marean didn't get it at that point, and continued on AN to insist he was correct in his edits. Even in this unblock request there is an undercurrent of 'you just didn't understand my edits'. Further, that he wants to be unbanned and read policies is again, wrong. Read the policies first, understand them, and (now that his talk page is unlocked), try proposing edits there. If he can propose constructive edits that actually line up with reality for a while, then ask to be unbanned. Until he proves he can make constructive edits, I can't help but think this request is putting the cart before the horse. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Quite simply put, I believe he is simply saying what he thinks needs to be said in order to get unblocked. He still has not admitted that he made any mistake, simply chalking up this to 'not having consensus'. I'd like to say that a mentor could help, but if he can't understand what was wrong with the edits by now, I don't think a mentor will be much of a help. Sodam Yat (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. -FASTILY 08:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember him, oppose, as mentioned above WP:COMPETENCE. One doesn't get community banned for a minor disagreement on the rules. A willfully ignorant and incompetent person, who I thought quit possibly was just a really clever troll playing Forrest Gump.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this article should be called Elizabeth II of England, because whoever heard of the United Kingdom? Everybody knows what England means. It’s the southern half of one of the British Isles. I know which one my money's on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

'Whoever heard of the United Kingdom'?! You're shitting your Uncle HalfShadow, right? That's Newfie joke dumb. HalfShadow 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, he's either too incompetent, or a plain ole garden variety...... you get the point. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody lost money underestimating the intelligence of the US public," to quote one of our sages. We have people who doubt Hawaii is part our nation, so I'm no longer surprised at the ignorance of my fellow citizens. (I don't know what those eople think the 50th state is in that case. Canada? God, if that were the case, I hope those 34 million people would rate more than 2 senators & 2 representatives.) -- 21:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the 50th of our 57 states, don't forget. -- Atama頭 23:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reject appeal; he still doesn't get it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Oh sweet Jesus, oppose. This is one we do NOT want back. --Smashville 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose He's either monstrously stupid or a clever troll; either way, we can do without him. HalfShadow 22:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose I feel bad for the guy, but I have to concur with the above. It's not worth the effort if he is going to act like that. Misplaced Pages is not for everyone. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Storm/teacup

It seems User:Jonny7003 has some issues. I made what I felt were some inconsequential changes to The Wave 96.4 FM, which mostly amounted to cleaning up the references, trimming some inappropriate bits (a cite to Facebook, and links to probably-unauthorised downloads of copyright material). They didn't like that, and put their material back in. They were reverted twice - by myself and User:Welshleprechaun. After reverting the material, User:Jonny7003 saw fit to drop a block warning on my talk page - I removed it as blatantly inappropriate. User:Rodhullandemu dropped by and reinstated it, chastising me, and even going so far as to defend User:Jonny7003's links to copyrighted material by suggesting they counted as "standing on the shoulders of giants". User:Rodhullandemu would later admit that they'd not actually bothered checking the edits in question because they were "too busy".

I have since received {{blocked}} {{uw-block2}} on my talk page by User:Jonny7003, who is presumably not an admin (since evidently I am not blocked). The edit that user took issue with this time? This. I'm now being accused of "removing suitable references and links", though when you actually study that diff, you'll find it does exactly what the edit summary says it does - it removes a cite to Facebook, it combines duplicate references (using <ref name="...">), and tags a couple of items that didn't appear to be supported by the sources - in other words, even less contentious than the original.

I have little patience to deal with this right now, so while I step out into the Big Blue Room to cool off, I'd appreciate some outside input on the matter. Here or on the relevant talk pages is fine. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide links for the edit differences in order to support your claim please? Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu has not been notified of this discussion. Woogee (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have notified him Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It was late; I saw this diff, a removal of references without explanation- I later saw that there had been an invitation to discuss on the Talk page, which had not been taken up at the time of this revert. An edit summary would have been helpful, especially to an outsider. I now see that this is not the first time 81.111.114.131 has been warned, and blocked, for edit-warring; s/he should know by now that (a) edit summaries are recommended and (b) jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Unless there are any particular problems, that should be an end of it, since the Talk page is open to all. Rodhullandemu 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It probably should end here, but it is worth noting that the IP, User:81.111.114.131, was providing good edit summaries - except once, when reverting back changes - and was mistakenly accused and warned of vandalism when the edits appear to have been made in good faith. - Bilby (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So when can I expect the apology that's clearly due? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Lifting community ban on Petri Krohn

This user has been banned for a year from Misplaced Pages as a result of a community ban, imposed, as it was discovered later, as a result of wikistalking campaign by the so-called EEML cabal group. (see this evidence: . The only his guilt was that he suggested that the recent creation of the so-called Historical Truth Commission by the Russian government may be in part, triggered by the Digwuren's group (later discovered to be EEML conspiracy) activity in Misplaced Pages.

He also has been previously banned as a result of WP:DIGWUREN case which was also abused by the EEML group by demanding the remedies were "symmetric" and accusing the arbitrator Kirill Loshkin of ethnic prejudice towards Russian cause. Petri Krohn was completely irrelated to the cause of that arbitration (which was good article promotion shopping in IRC by Digwuren), other than being political opponent of the EEML group. He was inactive in political topics for 3 months by the time of the arbitratiuon.

It was discovered lated that hounding political opponents and driving them off Misplaced Pages is a common tactic of the EEML group, other case being Russavia (see evidence here:).

It has been suggested by the Arbitration Committee members that the victims of the group (Russavia and Petri Krohn) to apply of lifting of their respective bans, Russavia already did and the ban has been lifted.

I personally know no Misplaced Pages's rule Petri Krohn ever broke and suggest him to be unblocked.--Dojarca (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that the Arbitration Committee's one-year ban on this user was imposed in 2007 and expired in 2008. According to the block log, the user is currently blocked/banned as the result of a different discussion. Also, before spending time on this discussion, do we know whether Petri Krohn actually wishes to return to editing? Not commenting on any other aspect at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just re-read my post. Second time he was "community-banned" by the Wiki-stalking campign by the EEML members which is evident from their mail archive:, submitted to the Arbcom. There are posts where they discuss how to better drive him out of Misplaced Pages and how to better vote on his ban to avoid suspicions of stalking. The formal reason for the community ban was his mention that Digwuren's group behavior in Misplaced Pages maybe played role in the creation of the Historical Truth Commition by the Russian government. Currently he is under this ban which was clearly discovered to be canvassed.--Dojarca (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no canvassing was discovered by the ArbCom, which was the reason why ArbCom did not remove his ban. Also, I believe that the current ArbCom needs to be notified in this, as there may be a separate issue with Krohn's ban not being lifted. --Sander Säde 20:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing was discoverad by the Arbcom.--Dojarca (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case, can you please link the relevant (about Krohn's block) finding of fact by ArbCom and not delusional musings? --Sander Säde 07:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - If we are chiming in to determine if Petri Krohn is to be unblocked and allowed to return, I support that. Looking at the thread in his block log, it looks like he was blocked very soon after coming off his 1 year ban for allegedly making threats . I don't really see a direct threat though, it looks more like a misunderstanding blown out of proportion... the editor even apologized and removed the alleged threat but was blocked anyway. A number of EEML partisans pile on at that discussion, which kinda makes it seem corrupted to me. PK was active at his own talk page as recently as last January, so it's safe to assume he is checking in now and then and perhaps still interested in participating. He has something like 27,000 live edits, which is fairly prolific... I say let him come back and contribute. Additioanlly, the ArbCom ban was over long ago, he is currently community blocked and can be unblocked by consensus, as noted at the bottom of the block discussion from last May. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. The admin that decided the ban is apparently not around, having invoked the right to vanish renamed his account and retired (see User talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired). I have no opinion on the merits of this appeal. Pcap ping 03:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - well-worth giving another chance. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• "It was teh Cabalz!" is not compelling when considered in the context of an editor who has already been banned once by ArbCom. I think an independent review of the evidence is indicated and would suggest that if this user wants to return to editing then they should contact the ban appeals subcommittee, who will judge the case dispassionately on its merits. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)