Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

See users talk page and User talk:Abecedare#Wiki Greek Basketball. User refuses to accept their block here, has apparently engaged in socking, and is emailing users outside of the WP email system who were unfortunate enough to have emailed him the past, allowing him to see their addresses. Has a terminal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and was warned on his talk page the last time he sent out his emails begging to be unblocked that keeping it up would lead to a ban. After being blocked here, he went on to get himself blocked from Simple, Italian Wikipedia, and Commons. This user has had good faith extended to them time and again, only to have him spit in our faces each time. A formal siteban seems an appropriate action, this one is a lost cause. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's already de facto banned - indef blocked and just had a (I think?) unanimous rejection of the proposal to unblock him. –xeno^talk 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just the guy who started the thread - although he kind of backed off during the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, he's the proposer, so it's somewhat implied he supported it. The proposal itself still stands unanimously rejected. –xeno^talk 19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) the guy is clearly de-facto banned anyway - I certainly never plan to unblock him, and I'd be surprised if there were any admins around with enough over-optimistic good faith to do so. He's had more than enough chances, and will need a lengthy absence before he can have another one. I don't think we need a great deal of extra discussion here. ~ mazca ^talk 19:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way he will be let back in less than six months, if ever. I say leave it be as is unless more socking and email nettling crops up. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it did just crop up, after he was warned to cut it out. While he is defacto banned, an actual siteban makes the process of dealing with the inevitable sock accounts simpler, that is essentially the only reason for this request for a formal ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually hadn't realized till just now that he'd duped someone into requesting his unblock here just yesterday, I missed that but if anything it strengthens the case for banning. He was blocked from the WP email system, but continues to evade that as well and emails users with his begging and pleading to be unblocked despite having the issues explained to him about a thousand times already and being told he needs to sit tight for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does a formal site ban make it easier to deal with socks? Block evasion is block evasion whether it's evading a de facto or formal ban. –xeno^talk 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he's lied without end. I've tagged his userpage with the banned template. If this doesn't have consensus, any admin can take it down or ask me to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the admins he's been in touch with (albeit without knowing that I was recently made an admin), I agree with everyone above. I have reached the limit with WGB. I can see no evidence from the communications that I've had with him that he is sorry for the disruption he has caused (here, on Commons, on SE Wikipedia and on the Italian Wikipedia) - all he does is blame everyone else. I have now set up an auto reply which just lets him know that I am ignoring his email (I have emailed him to let him know that is what I am doing). The auto-reply was triggered about 30 mins ago. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose That only gives him no other option other than to make socks if he doesn't get Wikipedia out of his system. WGB doesn't seem to respond well to feeling cornered as we've seen. Sure, we can block the socks and then he'll make more and we'll block those, and we'll just waste everyone's time. Keep it at an indef block. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not therapy. Those are all his problems, not ours, it's ridiculous in the extreme to suggest he has no choice but to create sock accounts. I'm sure his web browser allows him to access the rest of the internet, not just Wikipedia.The fact that he has in the meantime managed to be indef blocked from three other Wikimedia sites is telling as well. Caving in to his pathetic whining is only going to encourage more of this foolishness. This user needs to be sent a clear and direct message (again) that they are not welcome to be editing Wikipedia under any name. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the indef block isn't caving into him by any means. Caving in would be removing the block. My goal is to reduce to amount of aggrevation we see in regards to this user. If he completely loses hope with the WGB handle, but isn't completely off Wikipedia, he'll just cause more aggrevation. If you want to deal with that aggrevation, i'm fine with it: in that case, we shouldn't be talking here, his incarnations should just be blocked on sight. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, wikipedia isn't therapy. It isn't our place to coddle people, unless they're incredibly uncivil and make friends first.. The community needs to handle problem users appropriately. We're a group of volunteers and don't have the time, skills or resources to go around psycho-evaluating everyone to see how our discipline is going to effect them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we're looking for the solution here that helps the encyclopedia the most. Banning WGB adds nothing to help the encyclopedia versus keeping him on indef block. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• support Like most, I don't see much chance of reform here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support And the argument that a ban will encourage him to further violate the rules, what's the next alternative, letting him back so he wouldn't need socks? He's already shown that he won't stop with the current situation. He knows what he needs to do and he just doesn't want to do it. I know it's absurd but why not let him have the admin tools too so he won't bother people with AFDs and the like if he gets disruptive there? Rewarding this kind of behavior is bad. If he cannot control himself, he should get punished further. Period. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - By inciting a formal ban, we'll eliminate the need to worry about WP:OFFER - not that it's official or anything, but I think the user has certainly exhausted the patience of the community infinitely. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well actually no. WP:OFFER is applicable to banned users also--Cailil ^talk 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I feel that WGB has exhausted the patience of the community (he certainly has mine). He has shown by his actions on other WMF projects that he is as unwilling to work in a co-operative manner on any of them, not just the English Wikipedia. Although not 'admissible' here, his behaviour off-wiki (including threats of legal action against two admins here who had done nothing wrong) leads me to personally be unwilling to extend him any leeway - but his behaviour on-wiki is just as bad, and so even without the emails which I used to receive from him (before I set up an "ignore" rule) I would feel that a ban is justified for this user. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps in this case a global block (or what ever it's called when Global admins block an account) would be more to the point? If there is significant disruption on WMF sites including en-wikipedia then it should be taken up the line, no?--Cailil ^talk 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There was already established consensus for this, and the above arguments have identified those well. This is really just a technicality at this point. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Otherwise, I think wikipedia will run out of carrots. Consensus was already fairly well established. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have been forwarding his various emails to the unblock list. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This whole affair is very unfortunate. Wiki Greek Basketball is somebody with the potential to become a fine article contributor — but the downside obviously being his apparent inability to interact cordially with others. This leads me to question his suitability for a collaborative website like Wikipedia, as it requires people who can get along with others. At this time, a ban may be a fair option, as the community has attempted various options leading up to this and there isn't much else to choose from at this point. A break would be good for him, to allow some time to grow and learn from his mistakes. That said, I wouldn't like to shut the doors on this person entirely. If at some point in the future he has matured enough to be a collaborative and agreeable editor without causing significant issues like he has done before, then I would support a return to normal editing, with obvious sanctions such as a restriction from editing requests for adminship or a ruling against interacting with certain people. But given his attitude towards others and the bad blood that has been created, some time needs to pass before that can be considered (I'd say a minimum of 6 months, though preferably longer, and without sockpuppeting or unnecessary off-wiki communications with other users). At present, WGB is already under a de facto indefinite ban, and therefore should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia under any account. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, even if it's a mere formality at this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If it makes it easier to block his socks, do it. RadManCF (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Judging by past practice, someone is going to suggest an unblock again in a short time, and we need to have a clear statement of the community's reluctant agreement that collaboration involving this user is not likely in the near future. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a formality, but a necessary one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander is back, and continuing his previous disturbing behavior. If you'll recall, in the past he created articles promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, which were eventually deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misuse_of_antisemitic_accusations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_related_to_prevalence_of_Jews_in_leadership_roles_in_Hollywood

His activities prompted a lengthy AN/I thread, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#User:Noleander in which he quite plainly stated "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." While that AN/I thread was in progress, he disappeared for 3 months. Since his return to regular editing two weeks ago, however, he is doing much the same, albeit with more subtlety.

His first actions were to add three new antisemitic conspiracy theories to the Antisemitic canards article, that Jews control the media, Hollywood, and global finance:[1] While this may seem innocuous enough, he then focused on adding to the List of Jewish American businesspeople any Jews who were senior members of Financial firms, media owners, or heads of Hollywood studios: [2] an eye-winking way of saying "we don't believe this canard that a Jewish cabal controls all this stuff, it's just that there happen to be so many Jews in senior roles here". Prominent in the "Finance & Trading" section were fairly notorious Jews Ivan Boesky, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Marc Rich. For good measure, he threw in a "Pornography" section. Now, he may claim that he just happened to be adding names that he came across while reading J.J. Goldberg's Jewish Power (1996). This, however, is not the case. In fact, he has had to do Google Books searches for specific names, in order to prove they were Jews; a variety of sources including

• Shapiro, Edward (1995). A Time for Healing: American Jewry Since World War II
• Shay, Scott (2007). Getting our groove back
• Harlan, Stephan (2008). Encyclopedia of American Jewish history, Volume 1
• Strober, Deborah (2009). Catastrophe: The Story of Bernard L. Madoff, the Man Who Swindled the World
• Abigail Pogrebin. Stars of David (book): Prominent Jews Talk About Being Jewish
• Amman, Daniel (2009). The King of Oil
• Maisel, Louis (2001). Jews in American politics
• Langley, Monica (2004). Tearing Down the Walls
• Rosenberg, Hilary (2000). The Vulture Investors

etc.

Again, this is not a case of someone coming across a name in a book they were reading, and adding it to the list, but of someone actively searching for proof that specific individuals are Jews, so that they can be added to the List. Ivan Boesky, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Marc Rich etc. do not appear on this list by chance, but rather as part of a campaign of reversing alleged "censorship" "in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews". It is no accident that it is those specific Jews he searches for to add to the list, rather than, say, Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, Eli Broad, Edgar Bronfman, Andrew Grove, George Kaiser, etc. If they're not controlling world finance or the media/Hollywood, and are not criminals (or are not "pornographers"), then they don't interest Noleander.

His other edits have included edit-warring in a section about "Allegations of control of the world's banking system" in the Rothschild article:[3][4], adding sections to the "Criticism of Judaism" article [5] and proposing more [6] Also relevant are these recent edits: [7][8]

It appears, as was evident in the previous AN/I discussion, that Oleander edits Wikipedia primarily for two reasons; to include negative information about Mormons and Jews. In the past he focused more on Mormons; since the last AN/I discussion however, he has focused more on Jews. Even when the information he provides is arguably relevant, it has to be extensively edited to conform with policy (e.g. [9], [10]). While his pretense is that he is only attempting to debunk antisemitic canards, his actions indicate that he is actually attempting to promote them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like one giant bad-faith assumption. I don't see anything wrong with any of these actions, unless one were to put them together and look at it from a conspiracy theorist's point of view. The heart of the original complaints against Noleander's edits were that he created a separate article about an antisemitic canard, rather than contributing to the existing article that lists them. Now you're complaining that he's contributing to existing articles by adding things that properly belong there, merely because you think he's doing it for some devious purpose? This isn't right. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:40, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, it's admirable that you leap to Noleander's defense yet again; loyalty is a great thing. However, we're not idiots here. I've described essentially all he's done on Wikipedia since he returned; tried to subtly promote antisemitic conspiracy theories. Why did he go to the trouble of adding Andrew Fastow etc. to the List of Jewish-American businesspeople? Why that list of Jewish "pornographers"? WP:DUCK applies here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loyal to no persons, only ideals. Are you saying Jewish pornographers are somehow inappropriate for the list of successful businesspeople? For what reason? Equazcion ^(talk) 01:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Please stop pretending this is an issue about a single edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: If you think the list articles have become unbalanced, or something, and there are "better" examples of Jews in big business positions, then add the ones you think are missing. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:47, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

As is obvious, the issue isn't with specific article edits, though some of them are obviously problematic, but with a pattern of behavior. Please don't try to sidetrack. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with this pattern. If there are things missing from articles that have been omitted because people find them unpleasant, then I think it's a good thing they're being added. Articles shouldn't artificially lean towards the positive, even for sensitive subjects like Judaism. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stop deflecting. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with articles "artificially leaning towards the positive". You see nothing wrong with editing Wikipedia solely for the purpose of either promoting negative information about members of an ethnic group, or promoting information intended to support conspiracy theories about that ethnic group? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think it's fine. The "conspiracy theory" aspect id your guess, not exactly apparent. He's inserting the omitted "bad" stuff. The reason he's doing it is a matter of interpretation. You can say "aww come on, it's obvious he's promoting conspiracy theories" all you want, but that's again a bad-fait assumption. I'm not deflecting, I've answered your concern by explaining to you why I think this "pattern" you've identified is not a problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:05, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Equazcion, we know you think "it's fine". You also thought the two deleted articles were "fine"; more than fine. And you think it's fine to edit Wikipedia solely for the purpose of denigrating a specific ethnic group. Gotcha. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason for this to be at ANI. There's no immediate pressing concern for admin action. Surely WP:DR or similar? Black Kite 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been the only thing Noleander has focused on recently, which does make it worrying. You might say, "but all that matters is the content," but the content can't be trusted if it's being added by an editor who seems to be overly focused on one POV about one group of people. That means someone has to be constantly checking and balancing it, which isn't fair to other editors. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty fair. Part of editing the encyclopedia is balancing out each others' POV's. That's part of how articles become NPOV. The fact that a sensitive subject like Judaism is involved is the only reason this issue is at ANI. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:02, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about a single article, however, such as Judaism. It's about multiple articles, with one editing goal. Or do you, too, share Noleander's view that "that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what would you say, Equazcion, of an editor who went around adding the names of terrorists to List of Muslim businessmen, because some terrorists are Muslim and some of those were also businessmen. And when we looked at his contribs, we found that was the only thing he did, and that there was never anything positive added, only the negative. There are BLP implications, there are racism/antisemitism implications, there are SPA implications, not to mention NPOV and NOR. It's just not good editing, however you look at it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I'm not noleander, nor am I in a cult with him, so stop trying to lump your enemies together with pigeonholes. It's irrelevant that it's not about a single article. There are editors at all these articles who can see if there's a problem with their balance, and respond to it. Maybe you could simply watch them and help balance them out. I'm not sure why we would even make the assumption, though, that this will turn into a problem. If the user is inserting material previously omitted due to it being somehow unpleasant, in order to balance them out, why are we assuming he'll go too far in the other direction? Has he already unfairly slanted any article towards the negative? Which ones? If he hasn't, should we be assuming he will? That would not seem like an assumption of good faith to me. SlimVirgin: All those implications can be dealt with per-incident, if there are any. Right now you're basically only assuming such incidents will occur. I don't think that's what we generally are supposed to do here. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:13, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the lists of Jewish people (although adding a "pornography" section is really out of line), but it's ridiculous that he added this and this. I'm going to block indefinitely, this seems like a very clear case of a disruptive editor. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what exactly is wrong with those edits that warrants a block, Tbsdy? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:18, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Adding Jewish conspiracy theories to Sept 11th articles is not the right way of editing this encyclopedia. I've reviewed the previous discussion and seen enough contributions to see that we have a disruptive editor on our hands. I would normally be hesitant about this sort of block, but in this case I believe it to be warranted. They clearly know what the norms and policies are of Wikipedia, so I think that ignoring them as they have done is totally out of line and shows to me that they aren't willing to abide by them. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to have added "Several analysts documented that a motiviation for the attackes was the support of Israel by the United States". Is that a conspiracy theory? I'm pretty sure it's well documented that that was indeed a possible motivation, and he added credible citations. It doesn't even seem offensive. What's the problem? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:24, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem is that it's giving undue weight to fringe conspiracy theories. There are thousands of conspiracy theories about September 11th, we don't include them in the article. There is already an article at 9/11 conspiracy theories with a whole section, and in fact another article also has a whole section on this also. He knows this, so he should be editing there, but he isn't so he's being quite disruptive. There are other worrying signs he's got a POV to push, which is OK so long as it isn't disruptive, but in this case it is so therefore I've blocked him indefinitely. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation involving the US support of Israel is not a conspiracy theory, fringe or otherwise. It's a well-documented possible motivation for the terrorist act. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:33, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh brother, do I have egg on my face. I didn't read carefully enough. I'm unblocking. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks :) Equazcion ^(talk) 02:36, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Editor is unblocked with my apologies. I will refrain from any further blocks based on this thread, though I reserve the right to comment on his actions on WP:AN/I and to block in future (obviously with a bit more care than this time). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if he should be blocked, but there's a very clear pattern of edits. And it isn't pretty. The Jewish pornographers seems to be the most blatant. Many of these edits by themselves look innocuous but the overall pattern seems like he is pushing an anti-Semitic agenda. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think none of us agree with "Noleander's view that "that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews"? ' We therefore should wish to make certain that we never do anything of the kind. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia blacklisted some sites because they are critical to Wikipedia. I hope you are not suggesting that Wikipedia should become yet another anti-Semitic site just because somebody adds anti-Semitic garbage to the articles, and claims censorship, if he is not allowed to do it.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but nor should Wikipedia refrain from featuring verifiable (not rumoured, speculated, or "well, everybody knows that") facts (not gossip, folk myth or urban legend), just because they are about Jews, Irish, Chicanos, Phonecians, Hittites etc Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But since that's not what has happened in this case, it's difficult to understand why you make that point. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merely suspecting an editor of being racist or having an agenda should never be grounds for a block. If and when there's good evidence of POV problems or disruptive editing, try talking to Noleander about it, and then go to dispute resolution if that doesn't work. Taking him to ANI now for these edits is OTT. Fences&Windows 06:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if Noleander is racist, nor do I care, because it is entirely irrelevant to my point, and to Wikipedia. All I care about is a pattern of edits, and a stated goal. Noleander edits Wikipedia primarily for the purpose of making Jews look bad. That's disruptive, and wouldn't be tolerated if he did it in relation to other minorities. Good evidence of the problem has already been presented, and there have already been two AN/I threads about it. Keep in mind, it's only two week since he returned to editing; in effect, the problem never really went away, it's just that Noleander didn't edit for a long while. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay: my account was blocked for awhile. Apparently some admin blocked me by accident, then tried to unblock me but failed. I'd complain, but it's hard to get angry when admins are unpaid volunteers :-) We all make mistakes.

Regarding Jayjg's complaint: this is about 3 things: Content, Content, and Content. Jayjg is unhappy with additions I have proposed to the articles Antisemitic canard, Criticism of Judaism, and List of Jewish American businesspeople.

Rather than continue the dialog on the Talk pages (and, yes, there was on-going dialog on all those Talk pages: Ive never made any significant change without discusson on Talk pages first), Jayjg decided to throw up another "intimidation via ANI" smokescreen. And so here we are.

In the last ANI, I explained why Im interested in criticism of religion. So I won't repeat those details. But it is the topic Im interested in, and I'll continue editing there. Unfortunately, articles on religion tend to be very controversial, so I'm used to being called anti-mormon, anti-catholic, anti-semitic. I'm not of course - although the notable sources such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Israel Shahak may be. But the distinction between editor and source is deliberately blurred by Jayjg.

One of these days, someone will address the issue of censorship in the religion articles, or maybe "systematic bias" is a more accurate description of the problem? A few months ago, I brought up the systematic bias issue, expecting some Wikipedia sage to actually step in and do something, but it is dawning on me that there is no sage :-) (Although there was one editor, User:Georgewilliamherbert, who was rational and objective ... whoever he is: props to him!).

It is so easy for a handful of editors to pile-on and do the tag-team thing to exclude content they deem offensive - regardless of how notable and substantiated the content is. I suppose intimidation and tag-teaming is easier than actually discussing the content on the Talk page.

But as I learned in the prior ANI, neutral editors that visit these pages are way too busy to do a detailed scrutiny. Who has time to look at the Talk pages of the pages and see if I've been civil (I have)? Who has time to look at the content and sources to see if they are reliable and notable (they are)? Who has time to see if Jayjg tried to discuss the issue on the Talk page (he didn't)? No one. We are all unpaid volunteers, blundering forward.

So, I propose that we continue, Jayjg and me and the other interested editors, discussing the issues on the Talk pages. I also suggest that we check our egos at the door, and try to focus on what is best for the reader of this encyclopedia. Working together, we can produce neutral, balanced, comprehensive articles. Shall we try? --Noleander (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I blocked you for only 15 minutes, which is bad enough I guess. However, I did unblock you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for 24 hours. The error message was something like "You are not blocked, but your IP address is". The expiration time of the IP block was 12 Feb 18:13, if that helps. But I can edit now, so no big deal. --Noleander (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that. You should have sent me an email - I didn't block your email access. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Noleander, despite your obfuscation, the issue is about behavior, behavior, behavior. You edit primarily Jewish-related articles, solely for the purpose of making Jews look bad. That's a behavioral issue, since the specific content varies wildly, depending on the article. The fact that you pretend, with no evidence whatsoever, that there is "censorship" or "systemic bias" in relation to religion articles is a pretty transparent cover for this distasteful behavior. Adding a list of "Pornographers" to the List of Jewish-American businessmen has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. And the fact that you again admit you're trying to combat this imaginary "censorship" also puts the lie to the claim that you're simply trying to document antisemitic canards. No, you are trying to promote them, in order to overcome this imaginary "censorship". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while I'd agree that the term 'pornographer' is probably not what such people call themselves, there are people in the US, some of whom may be of the Jewish faith or ethnicity, who are major players in the Adult print (and increasingly web) industry and the Adult end of the movie industry, which are big business in the US. Since this is a business, like any other, so if producers of other genres of entertainment media are mentioned, the notables in the Adult genre should be mentioned too. So if your objection is to the descriptor 'pornographer', I'm with you. If your objection is to revealing that some persons who would describe themselves as Jewish-American are senior executives in Adult entertainment, then that's censorship.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Elen of the Roads. As I've very, very clearly stated more than once, this is not about any specific edit, but about a pattern of behavior. When one edits all Jewish-related articles, including the List of Jewish American businesspeople, for the sole purpose of, in that editor's view, making Jews look bad, then it's a behavioral issue. Mentioning the list of pornographers was simply a response to Noleander's transparent prevarication that he made this edit (and other similar ones) as a "criticism of religion". Adding a list of ethnic Jews in "Pornography" is not a "criticism" of Judaism; indeed, we have no idea what religion these people practice, and in any event their line of work is irrelevant to their faiths, whatever they may be. And the fact that he used the pejorative descriptor "Pornography" while in his edit summary used the more neutral and encyclopedic "adult industry execs" is merely one symptom (albeit a common one) of the larger problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander says his interest lies in criticism of religion, which is fine, but this has nothing to do with religion that I can see. He seems to be focusing on ethnicity. Jewish businessmen and pornography have nothing to do with Judaism. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Adult entertainment" is a euphemism. Must one use euphemisms to comply with NPOV? Michael Hardy (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander's use of the not-PC-on-Wikipedia word "censorship" is obfuscating the issue. He sees something missing, I think, rather than something that isn't allowed to exist on Wikipedia. Actually, though, the only evidence that it isn't allowed to exist is threads like this, as DGG pointed out above.

This isn't a case of WP:DUCK. It's a matter of choosing to perceive things a certain way, when there's a choice. WP:AGF tells us which choice we're supposed to make in cases like this. If someone said "Maybe it's time certain information that people have traditionally found objectionable, like Jewish pornographers, be included in articles, as info like this is sorely missing from Wikipedia," that's not an unreasonable cause to undertake. The problem is, such a person's edits would be rather indistinguishable from "pushing an antisemitic agenda"; it's just a matter of how you choose to see it.

Such ambiguous situations are the reason we have WP:AGF as a policy -- to remove the ambiguity, and tell you how you're supposed to view the situation, as least as far as your on-wiki actions are concerned. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:36, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous? Indeed, we're supposed to assume good faith. However, once lack of good faith is demonstrated, and the assumption clearly is not a valid assumption, the policy becomes irrelevant. In this particular case, we have an editor with an unambiguously intensely POV approach to editing, doing his best to promote bigotry. It surprises me that this sort of bigotry has this much support, but perhaps I am naive. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "ambiguity" whatsoever here. Noleander has made it clear by both his actions and words what his intent is. And Equazcion, we won't be diverted by your continued game of pretending this is about a single edit. No, it's not about "Jewish pornographers"; it's about editing articles related to Jews with the sole intent of making Jews look bad. Noleander is, as jpgordon states plainly and truthfully, "doing his best to promote bigotry". He's not trying to balance any imagined imbalance, or overcome any invented censorship. He's just quacking very loudly. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there seems to be no ambiguity here. This is not the first time Equazcion has acted as an apologist for bigotry with the excuse that "wikipedia is not censored". Mathsci (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The fact that it's not about individual edits is the problem. If you can't point to any specific article issue, then there's no issue. The alternative is guilt by suspicion. The lack of individual issues to point out means there's no objective evidence. Just because you see something one way doesn't mean that's how it is. No one's condoning bigotry, they're just saying there's no reason to see it that way, nor is the perception any reason to act. WP:DUCK is pretty easily misused to mean "I can act on my suspicions". Anyway I'm sure you know that no one here is a bigot, and are in fact sensitive to those issues. Kindly cease the hostilities. People including me are simply disagreeing with you. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:05, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of objective evidence; it requires looking at the body of edits, not the individual edits. What a weird idea. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invited comment: I have been notified of the existence of this thread by Jayjg, an editor I tend to disagree with on matters concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict but agree with on matters concerning anti-Semitism unconnected with Israel. The notification was because I created a previous thread on this page concerning Noleander and his citing of articles held by far right webpages to do with Jewish involvement in Hollywood. The article about which I was complaining has been deleted along with one on allegations of anti-Semitism and because of that I have not got access to the complete archive of my postings at the time. However I recall a one sided selection of data on Noleander's part. I therefore tend to agree with postings above that WP:Duck applies. Why is Noleander so obsessed with matters Jewish that he feels the need to create entries concerning Jewish pornographers? I have seen no evidence Jews are either more nor less seedy than gentiles but am concerned by this editor's apparent obsession with digging up all he can find that is negative about Jews. I am quite happy to take part in mudslinging against the current and previous Israeli governments, but the suggestion that the Jewishness of some of the people on the seedy side of American life needs highlighting strikes me as extremely suspicious in one with the editorial history of Noleander. Unless Noleander demonstrates a capacity to spend well over half of his Wikipedia time on amtters that have nothing to do with Jews, then I think that he should be told to go and grind that axe somewhere other than in WIkipedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Un-invited comment) I have to say, I find the existence of this thread depressing. If this were a brick and mortar encyclopedia, Noleander would have been shown the door, smartly, long before now. It's very disturbing that some people want to defend the indefensible. IronDuke 03:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, I would have been kicked out of brick & mortar encyclopedia. But so would Jayjg. The fact is that there is a long and well-documented history of about 20 editors in Wikipedia fighting tooth and nail to keep any and all information out of the encyclopedia that in any way reflects negatively on Israel or Jews. Those editors, too, would not be tolerated in a brick & mortar encyclopedia.

There was that odd CAMERA incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign), and then there is http://www.thejidf.org.

And every time there is some dispute, those same 20 or so editors team up with Jayjg (including a few that have commented in this thread). The content and quality of the enclopedia seems to be the last thing on their minds.

But this is wikipedia, where content in controversial areas is - for better or worse - arrived at by the dynamic tension between "opposite sides" (for lack of a better term). Excluding controversial material seems to be top priority. If we spent half the time working on the articles in question as we did pointing fingers at each other, the articles would be in a neutral, balanced state by now. --Noleander (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Well, sure, I would have been kicked out of brick & mortar encyclopedia." It is heartening to see you acknowledge this. "But so would Jayjg." Quite wrong. Jay is a long-standing valued member here. You are not. The reason people are "pointing fingers" at you isn't because you have a POV -- lots of good Wikipedians do. It's that your actions are absolutely reprehensible, I hope you can see the difference there. But I sense that I am feeding you by replying, so I'll make that the last word from me. IronDuke 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Im not following that logic. You're saying that the censorship practiced by Jayjg is okay because he has been doing it a long time? (By the way - you are one of the 20 or so editors that always seem to come to Jayjg's aid :-).

As for "Valued member" - Wasn't Jayjg stripped of checkuser powers because he abused it? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Jayjg_stripped_of_status_and_privileges

--Noleander (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that demonstrates that the community or its representatives are prepared to take various priveleges away from editors. Now looking at Jayjg's user page I note that he is entitled to quite a flashy Triple crown. Wikipedians have a lot of tolerance for editors who may be awkward in some ways but also provide good contents. (There has been a discussion on unbanning one such person on a board near here.) Now, if you want us to show tolerance for your quirks could you let us know how much featured or good content you have produced? As far as I can tell the answer is none at all as you are too busy pursuing the single purpose of digging dirt about Jews.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above where I offered to bury the hatchet and work together with Jayjg to improve the content of several articles. He never responded. --Noleander (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "hatchet" is there to "bury"? I have no "feud" with you. You are editing in a disruptive way, period. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA/FA contribs don't matter in a case like this. If they exist they might be something to point out as a "plus", but their lack isn't any reason to say an editor should be blocked. I don't think I've had many GA/FA contribs, and I certainly don't keep track of them, on my user page or elsewhere. That doesn't mean anything. The burden of proof is on the accusers to show actual damage, not on the accused to prove innocence through GAs and FAs.

On Peter Cohen's requested involvment, his extensive introductory comment undoubtedly meant to avert any accusations of WP:CANVAS violations on the part of Jayjg, this was indeed canvassing. Contacting someone who you tend to "agree with on matters concerning anti-Semitism unconnected with Israel" and request they comment on a matter concerning anti-Semitism unconnected with Israel is the definition of Votestacking.

I'll say this again: There are two ways (at least) to look at this editor's "body of edits". It's far from an objective form of proof. As many others commenting here have said, pointing out an editor's perceived agenda is never grounds to do anything. It's a subjective judgment, and it's rather arrogant to claim that one's subjective judgments are in fact objective. You're supposed to assume good faith that the user is attempting to balance the content of these articles, rather than promote antisemitism. There's no way around that.

If someone takes it upon himself to add chlorine to swimming pools, you could conclude he must therefore like to swim in chlorine; but that would be a very glib and unenlightened interpretation. Taking it upon oneself to restore or maintain a balance might mean forming a body of work that doesn't look all that positive. If Noleander tends to only worry about one side of the balance because he feels Wikipedia content on the issue tends to be unbalanced, he has every right to do that, and doesn't need to balance out his contributions with edits that advocate the other side equally just to maintain some appearance of positivty. It's just not a requirement here. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:43, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, your post is pretty much a smokescreen unrelated to this thread. There's no "perceived agenda" here; Noleander has stated quite openly stated that he believes he must overcome some imaginary "censorship" as regards Jewish topics, and has made it quite obvious his way of doing so is by editing Wikipedia solely to make Jews look bad. Editing Wikipedia solely for the purpose of adding negative information about a minority group is highly disruptive, and Wikipedia would not put up with it if it were a different minority group. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, you're not listening. Please try to understand: My post answers exactly this concern. Adding only negative information is not necessarily bad. It just might look bad. See the chlorine metaphor. And again please stop with the hostilities, claiming my post is a "smokescreen". I have no agenda to obfuscate the issue. I simply disagree with you. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:08, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, I'm listening quite well, it's just that your points, and analogy, fail miserably. They are predicated on the false assumption that articles relating to Jews have been suffering from "censorship" that has suppressed negative information. This is, however, a disturbed fantasy, no more. Adding only negative information is, if nothing else, a violation of WP:NPOV; NPOV, as the policy makes clear, is required of all editors. One cannot add only negative information, and expect other editors to balance the material. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV applies to articles, not user contribution histories. As long as an editor didn't cause an article to become slanted towards one POV, they can add all the negative information they like. Their reason for doing so is a subjective judgment and irrelevant. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:11, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. WP:NPOV is "expected of all articles and all editors." Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is expected that all editors strive towards editing articles so that they represent an NPOV view. The editor's contributions are not required to be balanced thusly. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:20, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. O.K., so, for example, when Noleander edited the List of Jewish American businesspeople, he was just attempting to "make it represent a NPOV view"? Let's take a look. When Noleander started editing it, it had ten names on it, and seemed a bit heavily weighted to Technology leaders. So, to create "NPOV", Noleander added 47 names, consisting of:

• 32 Jews in senior roles in the media/Hollywood (in support of the Jews control the media/Hollywood canard), including 4 Jews specifically searched for and added because they produced "Pornography".
• 12 Jews in senior roles in the Finance industry (in support of the "Jews control international Finance" canard), including 5 Jews specifically searched for and added because they had been convicted of serious crimes.
• 1 Jew in fashion, 1 billionaire casino owner, and 1 billionaire real estate developer (the latter from a book called "The Vulture Investors").

After his changes the list consisted of 51% media executives (including 7% "pornographers"), and 25% finance executives (including 9% criminals). Now given that there are hundreds of Jewish-American businesspeople with Wikipedia articles, in all types of business, do you think that Noleander's edits to this article have brought it into line with the WP:NPOV policy? Or do you, perhaps, concede that the list is now, oh, I dunno, a tad over-weighted with media and finance figures, criminals and "pornographers"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a specific article problem so that's a good start. The thing is though that adding finance and Hollywood figures isn't necessarily negative. The convicts and pornographers could be perceived that way, but 9 "negatives" versus 35 others doesn't seem like a slant towards the negative to me. The fact is that there a good many Jewish people in those positions, whether it's PC to say that or not, so maybe the article being largely about them is an accurate weight distribution -- and again this is just the "others" we're talking about. Noleander's edits don't seem to have made it look like most Jews are convicts or pornographers -- those still make up the vast minority of the list. So no I don't see this article as a problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:06, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, you must not pretend you haven't read the previous conversation, or that these edits were done in isolation. As part of Noleander's problematic activities, both before and after his break, Noleander was promoting the conspiracy theories that Jews control the media and world finance. This was just another way of doing so. Re-read the very first post in this whole thread, which explained this. In any event, your hand-waving rationalizations won't wash when confronted with the actual figures and percentages. The article became severely unbalanced after Noleander's edits. Are 51% of Jewish-American businesspeople senior media executives? Are 9% convicted criminals? Are 7% pornographers? No, we're pretty much done here. Noleander fundamentally violated NPOV in his editing philosophy, and specifically violated NPOV in his edits to individual articles, and there's nothing you can say that will whitewash those facts. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt most list articles do actually correlate to figures that represent accuracy down to the whole percent. No, I don't think the article is unduely weighted (incidentally, if it is then why not work on changing it?)

Anyway, I suspect you only think the edits were bad because noleander thinks his additions are "negative". Meaning that, had anyone else made the same edits, you probably wouldn't have seen a problem -- it's just this "quest" he's stated he's on that has you thinking differently. You don't want him to feel he's "succeeded", so to speak. Objectively there's no problem with the edits themselves, and had you seen them appear from someone who wasn't on a "quest", you wouldn't have batted a lash. As much as Noleander has an agenda, you've got the same one, perhaps, only going the opposite way -- you just haven't admitted it, as he has. You're very emotionally invested, which I suppose shouldn't be a shock, and I doubt there's any chance you'd let up no matter what anyone says or even if events changed.

The point is that this "negative" stuff is only "negative" because noleander thinks it is. Don't let that get to you. You need to read up on the word "objective" and see some examples of its proper use. The objective facts are that noleander added finance and Hollywood people. This isn't objectively bad. A subjective view is that he's added information that supports a canard -- and the fact that he sees it this way doesn't make it any less subjective. His subjective view of his edits don't dictate how we're to view or react to them, as long as they don't damage the article objectively. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:59, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about your inappropriate and incorrect speculations regarding my emotions, it's about Noleander's behavior. Several people have all seen the same issue with his behavior that I have. And, objectively speaking, the edits violated WP:NPOV regardless of who did them. Here are the objective facts: Noleander has been working for months to highlight the view that Jews control the media and finance. Are 51% of Jewish-American businesspeople senior media executives? 25% finance executives? 9% convicted criminals? 7% pornographers? Are the numbers anywhere close to that? No. Fundamental violation of WP:UNDUE, done deliberately. Case closed. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equazion can you explain how you are able to assume good faith about an editor obsessed with digging the dirt on all things Jewish but then you assume bad faith by writing that my "extensive introductory comment [was] undoubtedly meant to avert any accusations of WP:CANVAS violations on the part of Jayjg"--Peter cohen (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"obsessed with digging the dirt on all things Jewish" is a subjective take on the situation. Assuming good faith means viewing a subjective situation with the assumption that a person had the best of intentions at heart -- which is in direct opposition to assuming they're out to promote an anti-semitic agenda, or even that they're feeding an obsession. Canvassing policy has nothing to do with AGF. This was a technical violation. An editor who knew they'd get support from you asked you to comment. Faith doesn't come into play there. There are a lot of editors I could contact for support in this thread, but I don't, because it's against policy (and for good reason). Equazcion ^(talk) 00:29, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Equazcion, I had no idea if Peter Cohen would support me or not. My recollection of Peter Cohen's edits and comments was that he generally disagreed with me, period. I did not "canvass" his support, I quite publicly notified him of this thread as a courtesy, as he had started the previous thread regarding Noleander, and this violated no policy whatsoever. It's rather bizarre that you can insist that this action was a "technical violation", rather than simply Bad Faith on your part, while jumping through hoops to explain away Noleander's edits as being something entirely different from what they quite obviously are, and claiming others are exhibiting Bad Faith regarding him. I could as easily state that my assessment of Noleander's edits as fundamentally violating WP:NPOV is purely technical, and therefore entirely accurate and outside the purview of WP:AGF. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't know Peter Cohen would support you, then you're right, and I apologize. Peter's post wording led me to believe you knew he'd be "on your side" so to speak, but I may have misread. A violation of NPOV, however, is not the contribution of only negative information across articles, as I've just stated above in response to another of your comments. Editors aren't required to maintain an NPOV contribution list. So long as they don't cause an article to slant towards a particular POV, there's no NPOV violation. Noleander's edits are not "quite obviously" anything -- it's a subjective matter, again, and assuming good faith means assuming they were made in an effort to improve content coverage rather than slant it. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:17, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Peter may know his own mind, but I certainly don't know it. And, as I've shown above, Noleander's edits quite obviously made articles "slant towards a particular POV". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• refactored here, from above, by Equazcion ^(talk) 04:29, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Noleander writes above that his interest lies in adding criticism of religions, so perhaps he could put people's minds at rest by focusing on that clearly from now on—on religion, rather than ethnicity, and using good sources that offer a critique of religion. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amenable to SlimVirgin's suggestion. My primary interest is ensuring that the "downsides" of religions are documented in this encyclopedia (in a neutral, balanced way), and I'm willing to focus on that area. Good sourcing is always a priority for me, but I can redouble my efforts in that regard. --Noleander (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that would probably resolve the issue, particularly if the criticism is spread around different religions or focuses on the general concept. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps that's the end of this, if everyone agrees...? Equazcion ^(talk) 04:29, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Noleander still thinks he has done nothing wrong, and insists he is just fighting "censorship". And you're supporting him as always, using ever more farfetched rationalizations, which give him no reason to believe otherwise. It's hard to resolve things with an editor who is on a policy-violating crusade, and a second editor who will defend anything the first editor does. If he doesn't understand what he was doing wrong, how can he stop doing it? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm growing irritated of this claim that I'll defend anything he does. I have no reason to be loyal to Noleander. Frankly he does nothing but ignore me no matter how much I defend him, even when I've attempted to communicate with him before. If you want to characterize people's motives you should at least have some grounds. I believe in Noleander's right to do what he's doing as of now. That's it. I have no loyalty to him personally whatsoever, and if he ever actually did step out of line I'd be the first reign hellfire down on his ass. Kindly desist from this. We disagree. Deal with it. A healthy debate can be had without continually belittling your opponent. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:11, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, I'm not sure why you'd grow irritated with an objective description of your actions in this thread. You defend everything he does, using increasingly far-fetched rationalizations. Even when presented with indisputable numbers, you attempt to slap some whitewash on them. And since nothing he does, in your estimation, actually "steps out of line", your promise to "reign hellfire down on his ass" is hollow. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the definition of the word "objective"? I do not think it means what you think it means. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:45, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Well, it certainly doesn't mean "Noleander can do no wrong, regardless of the evidence", as you seem to think it does. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it doesn't mean that. See straw man. Are you aware of what it actually does mean? When you characterize someone's motives, as you've done with me, that's not objective. It's your opinion. Opinions aren't objective. Even if you're 100% sure you're right, and that no intelligent person in their right mind could possibly disagree with you, as you are undoubtedly sure of, it's still your subjective view. Tangentially, I tend to suspect people who seem this sure of themselves. It's usually the correct people who are willing to admit they could be wrong. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:36, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

And this subsection is supposed to be about SlimVirgin's proposed resolution. Do you agree or disagree with her offer? Noleander is willing to accept it. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:11, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Part of SlimVirgin's proposed resolution included ensuring "the criticism is spread around different religions or focuses on the general concept". Noleander hasn't agreed to that, has he? And, of course, if 90% of his criticisms were focused on Judaism, 5 percent on Mormonism, and 1 percent each on Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism, you'd still be defending him in the inevitable next AN/I thread, wouldn't you? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Noleander's pattern of edits are well described by the WP:DE and WP:TE. It seems to continue despite Tbdsy's warning. I have given him another, quite a stern warning and intend to block if the behavior does not change. Slimvirgin's proposal seem to be a good way to break the pattern there are probably hundreds other ways it is up to Noleander's but if his behavior would not change he should be blocked per WP:DE Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I don't think this discussion shows any sort of consensus on the issue. There are some pretty well-respected editors and admins further up who don't see a problem here. I respect your view, but this warning seems rather unilateral; which isn't to say you weren't allowed to make it anyway, but still, this is just for the record. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:17, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This reflects a general principle not necessarily limited to Wikipedia, but I don't believe that editors could rightly be prohibited from editing from an anti-religious perspective, whether that is general or specific to a given religion, unless they are equally prohibited from editing from a pro-religious perspective (e.g., the principle being applied should not favor any particular religion over another, or favor either religion or irreligion generally). There is a question with Judaism, certainly, about whether it can be categorized solely as a religion, and I don't believe the same principle applies to editing from an anti-ethnic perspective (as it wouldn't apply to a pro-pedophilia position). At least with regard to religion, though, I don't believe that being either pro or anti can be favored over the other. That doesn't resolve this, of course. Regardless, I would generally suggest that admins should look at the quality rather than the motive of the edits. If edits are repeatedly being undone, and shown to have been inappropriate, then the result should presumably be the same regardless of the editor's motives; likewise with any of the behavioral policies. This should avoid a perpetual hassle in chasing someone around. Mackan79 (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Flash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring for quite some time now over whether and how a great number of articles should use the term British Isles. That article is subject to a 1RR restriction, there is a taskforce at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples, and I am not sure if this is related to and subject to the sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. Many of these articles are watched by very few people, or the regular editors do not feel like getting involved with a highly contentious minor point (example: the recent edit war at FWA Footballer of the Year received no comment from editors not involved in this wide-ranging terminology dispute). It is certainly possible that wider editing restrictions may be called for regarding this dispute, but I think a restriction on Mister Flash would go a long way towards reducing British Isles terminology related disruption. I would like to propose that they be placed on a 1RR restriction and be required to gain firm consensus at the relevant talkpage or the taskforce page before making any edit regarding whether and how any article should describe this particular geographic and geopolitical region. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors involved in setting up the task force some intervention would be appreciated. There have been long standing edit wars over this, and consolidating all the debates in one place started to get some structure in place. However Mister Flash has an auto-revert approach on any change that does not involve the use of the BI term, regardless of the level of consensus. S/he seems to be a single purpose account. A brief review of the Task Force will show that while several editors are being even handed, their work is being disrupted by a failure to accept consensus and a consistent refusal to engage in discussion. There is a 1RR restriction already in place so I don't think that is the solution to be honest. We need something that prevents simple say-saying on every task force discussion--Snowded ^TALK 20:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles-in-question, should be covered by the Troubles Enforcement ruling of 1RR (if they are not). GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the opportunity to state my case in this matter. First let me brief you on some historical aspects. From some time about early 2008 User:HighKing has waged a campaign against the term British Isles. I will not comment on his motives, but I merely draw your attention to the facts. Initially the removals were carried out en-masse, with perhaps dozens of removals in a single editing session. I estimate that in the three-year period of this activity a minimum of 500 removals have occurred. During his campaign HighKing has been assisted by numerous other users, principally User:Crispness (possibly now editing under a "clean start" as User:Þjóðólfr) and User:Snowded. HighKing's activities have spilled out across Wikipedia and have resulted in many edit wars, confrontations and violations of policy, involving everyone concerned. His work continues. Only two days ago a further two deletions were carried out, each of which featured the usual trademark of an edit summary not adequately describing what was happening. I came across HighKing in late 2008 and found myself objecting strongly to his edits. I tend to revert his edits because, in my opinion, the vast majority of them are not justified. Rarely is the term British Isles being used incorrectly. If it ever is, then I don't object to its removal. When removals are challenged, a variety of tactics are used to try and overcome the objections. All the tactics employed amount to variations on gaming the system, with wikilawyering and policy shopping being foremost amongst them. Take the recent example of Five Peaks Challenge - the edits which have caused the reporting of this incident: HighKing first tried to claim the subject was not notable, when that failed he went for a merge, and this was followed by claims that the references (references to support an axiom, I might add) were inadequate. This latter tactic is a favourite of the anti-British Isles community; place a cite tag on an obvious fact and when no references are forthcoming, delete the term. So to my part in this: I object to the policy of British Isles removals for what I consider to be political reasons, hence my numerous reversions of the edits of HighKing and others. I would be very happy never to edit another BI-related article (specifically involving addition or removal of the term) provided a similar restriction was placed on other users involved in this dispute. In his comments on this matter, User:Snowded would have you believe that I am 100% at fault and that he, HighKing and others have no case to answer. Such an assertion could not be farther from the truth. These users are at least as culpable as me in this matter. Remember that the root cause of this entire debacle is one single, solitary user - HighKing. If he stopped systematically trying to remove British Isles from Wikipedia we would not now be having this debate. So to summarise; I will accept a community sanction not to add or remove British Isles provided that sanction is also applied to the other users whose identities I have noted here. Mister Flash (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If my suggestion is adopted, then both sides will be restricted to 1RR on the articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It won't work, GD. The BI removals would continue. Mister Flash (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above! A ban on all deletion and removals of British Isles by listed editors. Mister Flash (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howabout a ban on all deletion/additions of British Isles for all editors on Wikipedia? I could accept that condition. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil, am I missing something here, or did you refer to me as "being a single purpose, disruptive, wikihounding, edit warring, politically driven account", and then go on to admonish User:LevenBoy for saying that User:Snowded "has us believe that he's whiter than white"? Quite frankly I'm astounded, but I'll let it pass. On the subject of my user page, which you don't like, would you care to assess this one then?. Please note that I do not edit politically. I try to revert the political edits of others. Your suggestion of a site ban for me is completely over the top. I've already agreed to refrain from editing British Isles related articles if others will do the same. What more do you want? The Special Examples page is worthless. It was set up by HighKing because he was forced to do it. He objects to it, and has now stopped using it. It is flawed: it only attracts HK's supporters and those seeking to limit his edits. Other article editors are largely unaware of it. It is no substitute for the article talk pages. As User:LevenBoy states below, this problem will not go away until all concerned agree to stop removing, or indeed inserting, British Isles. You note below that this thread is not about HighKing. Would you object if I expanded it so that it was - adjust title etc and put a notice on his Talk page. Mister Flash (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flash I don't think you get it. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Your contributions (listed below): inserting unsourced material, removing sourced material, edit warring and wikihounding are not vague conjecture (as LevenBoy's remark about Snoweded was), they are a matter of record. If I said somebody was a pov-pusher but then gave no evidence that'd be a problem. But I've examined your edits and shown the issue.
Yes I would have a problem with you adding HK to this since you've been wikihounding him. Please leave it to uninvolved editors and admins. If there is a substantive concern a WP:RFCU should be opened. Also since you've made no attempted to resolve the dispute between yourself and HK this is the wrong forum to begin dispute resolution.
I agree the Task Force should be examined but I believe that should be left to the community. Also just out of courtesy you should reply to people in the thread that they posted--Cailil ^talk 22:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Where didn't I do that? I generally try to keep the dialogue flowing, but it's not easy here. You really should look at some of the edits in more detail before saying they are inserting unsourced material etc. On the face of it, that may be true, but as I've said elsewhere, the issue of sources and the use of British Isles is just one example of gaming the system, but it's not immediately apparent how that gaming is taking place. See Talk:FWA Footballer of the Year for a classic example of this. You'll also note that on that talk page I did request outside involvement, as I have done in many cases. I add this point just to defend myself against the current accusations. Mister Flash (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First no this isn't covered by the Troubles ArbCom ruling or any other ruling to my knowledge because the article sin question aren't about nationalism - but these editors are adding ideological references within them. As an outside viewer and uninvolved sysop I'd say it's pretty clear that 2/0's and Snowded's assessments bear out.
I'd block Mister Flash myself as an obvious Single Purpose Account but for the fact that it might look bad, being that I'm Irish. Nevertheless, I'm not saying editors who disagree with Flash are right or innocent of treating the site as a battleground. What follows is a brief investigation of this issue.
The FWA_Footballer_of_the_Year edit-war is indicative[11][12][13][14][15] - if this wording is a notable point it should be verifiable. In this single case it's clear that Flash reinstated an unsourced footnote for reasons other than WP:V, WP:NPOV and contrary to WP:NOR. On top of that the user's own user page is highly politicized and openly hostile to the Task force. I believe it contravenes WP:USER, in that it is deliberately inflammatory (in the manner it links to the task force) and polemical (Scottish independence etc).
Below is a review of problematic, politically motivated, edit-warring and/or wikihounding edits made by Mister Flash in some of his top 10 articles[16]

• FWA_Footballer_of_the_Year (diffs above)
• Tin_whistle[17][18][19][20] And Flash's first edit to thois article is in response to High King's[21]
• Cochrane[22]
• Neopaganism[23][24] Interestingly He'd never edited here until High King did[25]
• 1960_in_rail_transport [26][27][28][29][30] Flash starts editting here immediately after High King[31]
• Henry_John_Elwes [32][33][34][35][36]. Once more Flash appears on this page after HighKing edits it[37]
• Sarum_Rite[38][39][40][41][42]. Again Mister Flash turns up here for the first time in order to revert HighKing[43].

In summary, it is clear that Mister Flash is not alone in tendentious and disruptive behaviour. A number of edits by User:HighKing and User:Þjóðólfr are equally problematic.
In terms of sanctions, HighKing has contributed positively to the project but seems overly focused on this issue([44]). It is also clear that Þjóðólfr and HighKing have edit warred with Mister Flash. It also seems that Þjóðólfr and Mister Flash engaged in wikihounding (Þjóðólfr of Flash; and Flash of HighKing).
For this reason I move that Þjóðólfr should be topic banned from British Isles naming dispute topics for 6 months and placed on a 1RR restriction; that HighKing should be placed on a 1RR restriction in all articles. It might also be worthwhile considering a 6 month topic ban from British Isles naming dispute topics for HighKing, but his presence on the task force (and therefore willingness to dialogue) gives me hope. That said it might be worth investigating both of them a little further.
Mister Flash being a single purpose, disruptive, wikihounding, edit warring, politically driven account should be site banned. Wikipedia is not a battleground and unless or until Mister Flash can commit themselves to the core policies and standards of editing on this site they should be prevented from disrupting it further--Cailil ^talk 02:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the only thing the special examples page has managed to do is introduce totally innaccurate, and borderline nonsense, information to articles, which other people have to clean up after the event. It quite evidently only exists to push a POV, 90% of cases presented are fine, it's the other 10% you need to watch to see how bad it is at coming up with an informed and accurate solution to this apparent 'problem' of mentioning the verboten phrase. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my call for further investigation and a potential topic ban for HighKing--Cailil ^talk 16:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing was problematic, but then fully participated in the task force and accepted the agreements reached there (albeit with frustration at times). However the functioning of the task group has been badly damaged by the actions of MisterFlash (occasionally with other support) who has either edit warred against consensus, or indulged in delaying tactics (look the discussions on Sarum Rite for an example). Attempts by myself and others to create some order through the task force have either being met by a total lack of cooperation or downright abuse. We could do with admin support there. I support the proposal by Cailil although I think it is harsh on Þjóðólfr who in general has responded to Flash and has not initiated any change where agreement has not first been established at the task force.--Snowded ^TALK 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For all those above that are buying into the "HighKing was problematic" statement - can you please provide diffs? From my point of view, this inaccurate view is a victory for the editors that we are discussing. By calling my edits political, part of a campaign, etc, it seems that many editors slowly but surely start to believe this. The task force has been up and running since last September, and before that each and every one of my edits was discussed on the relevant Talk page. I've always attempted to the best of my ability to edit within the policies, to provide references, and to engage in discussions. Labelling this behaviour as "problematic" is very unfair and inaccurate. It may be unpopular with some editors, but that should not be mistaken for my acting in good faith, in a collaborative apolitical fashion. Cailil's suggestion above that I am placed on a 1RR restriction for *all* articles is similarly misplaced and without foundation, and I'm shocked and disappointed that he would not examine my behaviour a little closer. Placing my behaviour in the same basket as that of Mister Flash et al is wildly inaccurate and unfair. --HighKing (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HK, the very fact that your account was involved in an edit-war anywhere is problematic. The fact that this occurred multiple times at multiple articles only serves to make it worse. Secondly extending the British Isles naming dispute to articles not about the dispute is an issue[45][46][47] (these diffs are listed above). Yes Flash followed you to these articles but frankly, it takes two to tango (or in this case 3). BTW, no you are not being lumped in with Flash, you are not a single purpose account. Also I'm not convinced you should be topic banned but the edit-warring speaks for itself--Cailil ^talk 21:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil, thank you for clarifying that my behaviour is not being lumped in with Flash - that's important to me. While I reckon that this probably isn't the correct forum to discuss individual articles, I don't understand what you mean by "extending the British Isles naming dispute to articles not about the dispute". The editing and Task Force is not about the BI naming dispute. The British Isles is a legitimate and correct name for the group of islands. I've no problems whatsoever with that. But your comment illustrates how easy it is to see *any* edit involving British Isles as somehow being caught up with Irish Nationalism, whereas my edits are concerned with accuracy (and this I've also stated before). The edits in question are where the term was (arguably) used incorrectly. Rather than debate here we can continue this particular discussion elsewhere - perhaps at the Task Force page. --HighKing (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For further reference please see this link [48] (HighKing was Bardcom) and this one [49]. Mister Flash (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Flash stop. Adding an old RfCU that went nowhere about HK and adding the AE that most admins are (and certainly the one who opened this section is) more than aware of, only goes further to show that you are wikihounding HK. Then emboldening that post only makes it worse.[50][51] You will not get another warning for wikihounding. You're being formally advised to disengage from HighKing and the British Isles naming dispute and User:HighKing--Cailil ^talk 21:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil, I sincerely suggest you move on, before you start abusing your powers as an admin. I bolded it because it was in danger of being lost in a section that's being edited in several locations. As for the content of those references, they are as relevant today as they were when they were current. They provide background information to this dispute, a dispute which for some reason you fail to acknowledge as being the root cuase of the current debate - and you have yet to answer my question about extending this section. It seems that many admins have tackled this issue over the last three years and all have given up on it, so it doesn't bode well for you. Suggesting that I'm wikihounding HK as a result of my referring to relevant archives is laughable, as is warning me to disengage from the BI naming dispute - it's what this thread is all about for heavens sake! Mister Flash (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously been involved in this dispute but I've largely given up on it now. In fact, it's driven me away from Wikipedia to a certain degree. It seems that Cailil has not quite grasped the underlying issues concerned with HighKing and his edits. As many editors have noted, HK's edits are political in nature. He has an agenda and is using Wikipedia to promote it. It is his actions that are the ultimate source of the problems we encounter. Ask yourselves this question - If Mister Flash is site banned (a wholly disproportionate response) will the problem go away? Then ask this question - If HK is site banned (or topic banned) will the problem go away? I suggest the answer to the first question is 'No', because others would simply take up the reins. I also suggest that the answer to the second question is 'Yes'. It's very noticeable that when HK is not editing, no-one else is bothered about the SE page and there are no British Isles issues. Only when he re-starts does the problem crop up again. To me the solution to this intractable problem is simple - topic ban all concerned. Everyone involved in this has a case to answer, including Snowded who would have us believe he is whiter than white. No need for site-wide bans. Editors such as Mister Flash would simply melt away into background if a topic ban was in place. His editing is pretty much SPA so he'd move on elsewhere, and perhaps HK would as well. LevenBoy (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your points LevenBoy. First this thread is not about HighKing (hence my call for further investigation) but it is clear from his history that he edits other topics and is not a single purpose account. Second, please don't cast aspersions about other editors as you have about User:Snowded. Third, Mister Flash has, as can be seen by examining his contrib history used Wikipedia as a battleground. Fourth your points would be more convincing if you could provide diffs as evidence.
Over all I do see that groups of users are bringing political disputes to pages that have nothing to do with that dispute. Which is a) getting around the Troubles RfAR ruling, b) creating ideologically driven edit-wars and c) which is not limited to Mister Flash. However this thread is about Mister Flash - and frankly it would outside the remit of this forum to go through and unpick the complex of issues that users have with the Special Examples Task Force. That would require an RfAR which you are free to file. The other option and a suggestion that might be more useful to the community would be an extension of the Troubles AE ruling to the 'British Isles naming dispute' topic (widely construed). This would allow for discretionary sanctions on anyone edit-warring, etc, relating to the term 'British Isles'. To implement such an extension a request to ArbCom would be required. But IMHO it would make a lot of sense--Cailil ^talk 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extent the AE Troubles ruling over the BI naming dispute. It can easily be assumed that there's some Irish nationalism & British unionism behind the disputes. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it on multiple occasions - there's absolutely no Irish nationalism from my point of view. And you can see that the work that took place on the task force and Flashes refusal on many occasions to engage meaningfully. --HighKing (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two are completely separate issues. You might just as well extend the Troubles ruling over the Macedonian naming dispute. Mister Flash (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)I've only just seen this now. I hadn't been informed of this discussion. I arrived here as I was about to make a complaint about Mister Flash concerning this edit on St. Peter's Church, St. George's and Strumpshaw Fen RSPB reserve. Despite his untrue assertion that I was forced to create the Specific Examples page, the truth is that and I voluntarily set it up despite my misgivings about censorship - and in part because I had a good idea that it would end in disruption by a very small number of editors. Despite several warnings about civility, editing without following policy guidelines regarding references, and constantly branding any attempt to even discuss usage of British Isles as "political", his behaviour is not collaborative and he constantly edit-wars against consensus. He was warned in the past to not revert referenced material, but the two recent examples above clearly show that he openly ignores policy and admins. The Task Force has ground to a halt because of his behaviour and stone-walling. Examining his edits clearly shows he wikihounds my edits, and reverts without references or discussions. He takes the opportunity in his edit summaries, on every occasion, to label the edits as political or to unfairly cast any editors motives. In short, this is exactly the type of editor that we simply don't want on this project. He has recently been blocked for edit-warring, but his recent reverts demonstrate that he will simply continue to revert without reason in the future. --HighKing (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the purpose of the task force just now. Its sole purpose is to limit, and ideally eliminate, usage of the term British Isles throughout Wikipedia; straight up. Mister Flash (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen various disputes in this area, I think it may be best if the community looks at restricting one or both of the editors from adding or removing the term, period. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain who you mean by "both" (I thought this was about Mister Flash's behaviour - are we extending this?). It might be helpful if you provided some diffs showing example of the other editor's behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have good and bad uses of the term SirFozzie, what we want to stop is edit wars. HighKing has (to his credit) after a long period of removing the term wherever he could find it, being prepared to use the task force page. However Mr Flash with some others (LevenBoy being another) have with the very very occasional exception simply said no to any change regardless of the evidence. At one point I suggested a protocol which in a modified form would I think work. However any attempt to be even handed just results in the sort of accusations you can see above. Mister Flash's view of the purpose of the Taskforce is not supported by any examination of the cases there. Any examination of the edit history on the task force page, or on the articles will show that we have a single purpose editor who auto-reverts, makes accusations against other editors and actively seeks to prevent consensus on contentious issues. I've been prepared to spend time on the task force, looking at each issue as have a small number of other editors with experience of the BI issue. I can see some guidelines starting to emerge. However it is a thankless task when all attempts are subject to disruption and accusations. Per the proposed protocol, enforcing use of the task force and some dispute resolution process could work with community support. --Snowded ^TALK 07:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While observation does bare this Snowded, from an outside perspective it is only proper that we handle this dispute neutrally. HK and Þjóðólfr edit warred with Mister Flash. Yes there are other, more serious, issues with Mister Flash's on site activity but revert wrring is a serious matter and needs to be seen as such by those who engage in it.
While I think there are positive aspects to your protocol I don't see it as a positive step for the project. We have the BI SE task force itself, WP:CSB for countering systemic bias, WP:WQA, WP:AN3, WP:AN, WP:RFP for policy issues and admin intervention and the ArbCom enforcement policies for the troubles rfar - which dealt with a similar (but not the same) naming dispute. We don't need a special group for this dispute.
In short we have policies for behaviour and content already. If certain volunteers can't follow the rules then we will prevent them from disrupting others who will. Simple as that--Cailil ^talk 09:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out where I edit warred with Flash - that's twice you've made that accusation. I believe you'll find that Flash was editting against concensus. You use 3 examples above, none of which can be regarded by any stretch as edit warring. And BTW, you must also take into account that for some of this time, BlackKite had ruled that no editor could revert a good edit especially if it involved references, which Flash continues to do on a regular basis. Many of my reverts were valid, and I made sure I didn't start an edit war. If you check the articles in question, you'll find other editors did far more reverting of Flash that I did. Sure, on occassion I have become frustrated with his behaviour, but I have never breached policy, or even warned or blocked for edit warring. Do not make the mistake of grouping me with disruptive editors. This is another example of an exaggerated and unfounded allegation, borne from the severe breaches of WP:CIVIL that accompany most of my edits. I'm no martyr, but please please please take the time to examine my behaviour (especially in the context of the very severe bullying, namecalling, and name blackening I have been subjected to over the past number of years), and if there's problems, provide diffs. I believe you'll conclude that my behaviour has not crossed any line or breached any policy. --HighKing (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the Irony: Had the propper action been taken in the first place, perhaps there would have been no need to Shoot the messenger again!! for the same misdemeanor. Þjóðólfr (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid disagreeing with actions that are taken does not allow you to break WP:EDITWAR. It is clear however that you have other interests and productively edit so I recommend you just disengage from Mister Flash. The community can handle this--Cailil ^talk 11:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see diffs for the alleged "long period of removing the term wherever he (HighKing) could find it". As far as I can see, it is an unfairly-repeated exaggeration at its very best, and a real slur on a committed editor at worst. He began a bit rashly as Bardcom (a long time ago now, and I was one of those who called him up on being too 'prissy' in his reactions to some simply concerned requests, and I reverted any BI changes I disagreed with), but this repeated exaggeration of HK being a "extremist" editor is totally unfounded as far as I can see. Nobody saying it is proving it - it's just all words.

The term "British Isles" was incorrectly-used all over Wikipedia, and Bardcom/HighKing had every right to go from article to article addressing it. He has always listened to article-related criticism, and avoided uses of the term which are obviously correct. Very occasionally he copy-edits away from a 'fair' use of the term (ie when various descriptive routes can easily be taken) - but again that is simply an editing right. As HighKing (perhaps a name to start afresh with) he has stood behind every form of BI-related taksforce, when others have shunned them for various reasons.

In between there have often been people around who have insisted that the term 'British Isles' should be used widely and without censor - a situation which will never suit Wikipedia, or kind of consistent dictionary or encylcopedia.

If HighKing gets a topic ban I will take this to he top and shine a light on everyone involved. I'm tired of seeing the actual workers get the eventual heavy blows on Wikipedia. There is no sense in it at all. And I am not 'anti' the term British Isles, I'm very much a 'British' editor. Terms like British Isles are simply problematic. "British Isles" is both inherently potentially-misleading, and has different definitions on the actual islands it covers, and regarding its mixed cultural/political/geographical usage too. The only way Wikipedia is going to deal with those inherent problems is via the kind of Style and terminology Guidelines that every other serious encyclopedia adheres to in these situations.

Until that guideline happens, topic-banning or unduly restricting any editors for reverting each other (eg punishing them outside of simple 3RR or Civility) would be punishing them for Wikipedia's own clear failings. The guideline will happen eventually (I'll be back on it soon myself), and until they are completed we need to stick to the Specific Examples page and 3RR. After we have those guidelines, admin will be much clearer about how to address any situations that could flare up (and these would be minimised anyway), and the future will be a lot less fractious, and actually quite-easily managed. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above: it is proposed 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 or User:Þjóðólfr, or site banned.
That User:HighKing is either placed on revert restriction (1RR), 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. And that User:Þjóðólfr is either placed on revert restriction (1RR), 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.
I would suggest considering his perfromance here that if Mister Flash is not site banned that he is additionally placed on civity parole--Cailil ^talk 09:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]