Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:49, 6 September 2010

Welcome! Hello, PhanuelB, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!   pablo_hablo. 19:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Zlykinskyja for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. FormerIP (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi PhanuelB,
I've sent you an email concerning this case.
Amalthea 09:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phanuel. Since checkuser has shown that you are not a sock of Zlykinskyja‎, I apologise for any worry or inconvenience caused. It looks like you have not been about anyway, so you've probably missed to whole thing. As I said in the SPI report, you have not edit-warred or broken any rules, so you come out of this without a mark against your name. Hope you will continue to contribute at Murder of Meredith Kercher. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page

I would consider this very carefully, and consider striking your remarks. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages

Hi. I am the User:Wikid77 you have been suspected of being. If they had evidence of WP:sockpuppetry, then you would have been blocked from editing, maybe for a month. Perhaps you already know these WP policies. I am glad you were not blocked, because they would have blocked me too! (as being considered the same person). You must be careful not to word messages that sound like someone else, because if they conclude you are, then both people will get blocked. I guess, in reality, if they connect you to a formerly blocked user, then both of you get, maybe, a 3-month block. I am thankful for the danger, because it makes me understand how it feels to spend years accused of something you didn't do, and live in fear of what they will accuse you of next. Misplaced Pages did not invent "persecution" and thus, no one alone is to blame for the problem. The Bible advises, "Remember those in prison". And so we do.

I have, just today, read your posts from weeks (months) ago, and I am impressed with your knowledge of such important matters. We have many other highly intelligent writers, including medical professionals, and there is a proposed Wikimedia 5-year plan to greatly improve the long-term quality, including the various other-language Wikipedias. Please feel free to edit other articles about those subjects, and help explain the issues for our millions of nice readers.

Also, note that most WP policies are, currently, very well-written to encourage kind and helpful editing, even if it seems mostly hateful around here. The problem is those good policies are not enforced, so it seems like Misplaced Pages is a bad environment, but it is just a problem of being unable to enforce the clear rules already written. Einstein warned, "Power attracts people of low morality, and I have found it an invariant rule that tyrants of genius will be succeeded by scoundrels" (or similar wording, probably in German). I think Jimbo Wales (and the rest) have tried to impart compassion, but unfortunately, sufficient controls are not yet in place to thwart bad behavior. Anyway, most articles on WP are not censored, and if you keep working on numerous other articles, then any wikihounding will be reduced, as they lose interest in snooping about your activities. They might read every word of this talk-page, but lose interest, in stalking, if you edit a lot of various articles.

Well, as far as sockpuppets, I can testify that you are not me! So, you have one more person to come to your defense (or defence). It is like expecting a new witness, during an appeal, to testify for you, and then you are acquitted. At that point, months later, you are still free to write the rest of the story. Try to remember all the kind readers here, and avoid hostile people who probably tortured animals when they were younger, and know what to expect from them. Anyway, again, welcome back. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF and WP:SOAP before contributing further. Casting aspersions such as these are unacceptable, and will lead to a removal of your editing privileges. MLauba 10:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To put this in plainer language, the next time you ascribe motives to other editors like you just did again at the end of this contribution, you will be blocked. Argue on content, not on imaginary motives of other contributors, or bring your contributions elsewhere. MLauba 13:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

As you appear unable to edit without soapboxing and treating Misplaced Pages like a battleground, you have been blocked for disruptive editing for a period of 24 hours. Again, accusing a group of editors of holding an agenda is an unacceptable disruption and violation of collegial editing norms. The onus is on you to assume good faith of your fellow editors - throwing wild accusations around in furtherance of your points in an attempt to bully and intimidate others will not be tolerated. Once you return, you are encouraged to take the "comment on content, not contributors" advice to heart. MLauba 13:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Friendly manner

Hi, Wikid77 here again. I am impressed by your continued friendly manner. Some people try to bait others into outbursts, as if trolling for trouble, so I applaud your amazing composure. I guess arbitration is the last hope when other people violate so many policies which, for years, have encouraged accurate and balanced articles, including to note major controversies in the first section of articles about controversial topics. Almost any person in the news for years gets a separate bio article. I cannot emphasize enough that many WP policies are excellent and fair, if only dozens (hundreds?) of people would not violate them every microsecond. For example, the policy WP:LEAD clearly states to explain controversies in the intro of an article (otherwise, readers would have no idea that notable people are outraged by the specific events). This "aint Weaselpedia" where all people mealy-mouth events to censor their coverage or pretend there are no shocking controversies: no, that's called "policy violations" which censor article contents. Most articles are collections of opinions expressed in newsreports or books (etc.), where even emotional opinions are directly sourced or quoted, but emotional opinions are a major part of Misplaced Pages. The key idea is that the opinions written in the article text must match the opinions in the sources, in relative proportion to the coverage (science articles state scientific opinions, mostly). An opinion by a U.S. Senator has almost the rank of President because the 100 senators decide U.S. foreign policy and remain in office for decades, while a president has a term limit of 8 years. A quote by a U.S. Senator could be summarized in an article's WP:LEAD intro section because of that impact. Anyway, as a reminder of WP's excellent (oft-violated) policies, I quote from WP:LEAD about addressing notable controversies in the first sentence of an article (rather than treat it as a coroner's report of details):

"The lead section (also known as the introduction or the lead) of a Misplaced Pages article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." (excerpt from WP:LEAD)

Many other WP policies are just as sensible, such as WP:NOTCENSORED. As you probably know, Misplaced Pages has broad coverage: for the JFK assassination alone, there are 20? articles, even including: "John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories" (with many opinions). There is no absolute rule: "1_event=1_article" (not true). Instead, in reality, a major controversy gets several articles (17? about the Manson family). Simply consider, by asking the question, "What would many open-minded people write?" then that gives a good idea of what the articles should contain. There have been 16 articles about the fictional book and film The Da Vinci Code. A real-life investigator should get a separate article, including his major investigations. Again, your composure is remarkable, but please note that numerous intelligent people are here to help. It is rare to find 9 (or 15?) people who all want to violate numerous policies to censor the same article. I regret that your valuable time has been wasted by their antics. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why thanks for the encouragement. I have great respect for Misplaced Pages but I'm not sure they've got the right formula for the really contentious issues like the trial of AK. I'm in kind of a holding pattern now as the guilters are really in charge over there. I had watched the article for about a year and had actually registered for an arbitration that was supposed to happen. I didn't quite understand when the arbitration was called off. A month or so ago I dropped by and my jaw dropped when I saw what had happened. Within hours of my arrival this time attempts were made to get me banned based on false statments. Periodically other people with pro-innocence POVs are showing up and appear to be shocked also.PhanuelB (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have been shocked by their months spent systematically censoring, removing text. The Misplaced Pages "formula" was not designed to counter so many severe mindsets. A balanced person just works to expand or refine an article for a few weeks, then moves on to others, but not in this case. Normally, there would be lists of forensic evidence, key photos of the people and crime scene, perhaps even a subarticle just for the "conspiracy theories" of opinions to imagine how could 3 have joined in the act. Instead, the text is trimmed to zip. Plus, it isn't just a few users; it is several who "take turns" from month to month, to trim details. I know there was extreme worldwide bad-mouthing of those students, enough to cause outrage: "Don't let them get away with it" (they even used "bleach" with no chlorine smell! diabolical!). I had seen only the June 2009 trial session claiming "police brutality" but did not edit the article until mid-December, and I held only a faint glimmer of ever understanding the case. Then, wow, 3 months later, all the reliable sources revealed an amazing explanation of the numerous controversies: 15? cases of a misquote or innuendo or sex fears that seemed to condemn them. Almost nothing left to indicate guilt. No sex items or potions in the room. No wine consumed. Did you hear the screams? No, no, no. Then they testified at trial how she never cried, but the family revealed she wept with grief. Also, there are so many fascinating issues about the culture: if you realize how fascist officials are targeting your new friend & your sister knows how police investigate, then perhaps you should reply: "I wasn't with them. I don't when they left or returned. We're not together". For people who really understand fascist pressure, then that is not a suspicious reply, at all. It was noted that most facts are revealed in Italian courts during the "inquisition" of trial, not merely presented as in British or U.S. courts, with formal Rules of Evidence, to be considered by both sides. It seems as if a person can accuse, "They flew around the room grabbing their DNA, footprints and fingerprints which vanished in their hands", and the court judge would simply reply, "OK, now we will ask other witnesses when this flying occurred and how much evidence they grabbed to vanish". It is as if enough people need only say, "We didn't see them leave, but the chimney was open" so, aha, they must be guilty. How many times was their local news allowed to say how "confidential sources" reported massive evidence of the Satanic rite with a blood Celtic Horse drawn on the wall, extensive torture, and brutal abuse of such young innocence? No wonder people come in packs to Misplaced Pages to make sure no one allows them to get away with it. Such events need to be cited as examples of modern propaganda and brainwashing that drive people to even violate ALL the policies of a website, to push their obsessed conclusions, unaware they have all joined the mindset cult of Mignini. I think this should be noted in arbitration: how many people were flooded with false reports, for 2 years, so they refuse to allow the reliable sources to state otherwise. Think about it: typical users do not censor an article in that fashion. There has been some major psychological distortion driving these people. Are any of them paid to suppress evidence? It is just not the way normal people act. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're accusing people of being "paid to suppress evidence"? That is serious paranoia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.172.223 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:PeterVanSant.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:PeterVanSant.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. — raekyT 18:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to rephrase your latest statements

Good day,

You are hereby kindly invited to reformulate your latest interventions to remove innuendo aimed at other editors. Your comments are becoming increasingly personal and combative. It is time to consider whether you want to contribute to article writing or prefer fighting on talk pages. MLauba 21:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the allegation that no other page violates NPOV as much as this one. I think the block on Wikid77 and Zlykinskyja should be removed so that there can be more balance in the discussions. I would reiterate that attempts to block me based on false statements were made within hours of my arrival this time around -- that is a fact. Statements about Mignini have been fully sourced with statements by reliable sources. Please note that I have provided proposed re-writes of sections including the introduction. Actual edits would result in edit wars.PhanuelB (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

While the sockpuppetry accusations within hours of your return under your present identity are unfortunate, you will want to consider that it was a product of the battleground editing climate left by the two editors you mention. In the same vein, regardless of the strength of your conviction, when your arguments derive from discussing edits, sources and their validity to alleging a cabal of editors intent on suppressing a point of view, you are poisoning the editing climate, something that cannot be tolerated.

As for the other two users, one has been indefinitely banned by the community for what appears to have been viewed as both excessive advocacy and excessive xenophobia, and her unblocking subject to, I expect, a clear promise to avoid both in the future. Wikid77 is currently topic banned by community consensus and not blocked, and he could appeal the topic ban directly if he wanted to and were able to give reassurance that the behaviour that led to the topic ban were a thing of the past.

Considering the advice he's been giving you here, though, skirting along the edges of his topic ban, I'd be pessimistic about his chances.

Regardless, any editor is welcome to participate, provided that no matter the strength of his beliefs, he remembers to assume good faith of other editors at all times, refrains to treat the article like a battleground, understands that Misplaced Pages's role is not to right great wrongs nor to lead the reader to play armchair CSI. MLauba 08:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The claim that the conduct of the editors who made false statements attempting to get me blocked should be excused as the "product of" the misbehavior of two previous editors who made the same arguments I did is completely and categorically false. I note that the Misplaced Pages policies that talk of assuming good faith do make provision for concluding that bad faith has occurred. The arguments I make are that the article is devoid of the conclusions of the vast majority of reliable sources who have provided commentary on the case -- I named 10 of them in WP:BLP section. Those issues are not great wrong or battleground issues. The problem is that when you hear the same thing from a number of people, you can't solve the problem by banning them as has happened here. The two editors I named need to be un-blocked.PhanuelB (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You made the arguments indeed, and it has been disputed from what I can see. I also notice however that "words being painfully twisted" in your latest commentary is again ascribing motives in a tone that is unlikely to help furthering the discussion and I invite you, again, to reword that part of your statement.

As for the two other editors, they were removed from the discussion because of their conduct, not their views. Wikid77 is not blocked and can appeal his topic ban himself if he wishes, the other user knows the venues to use in order to appeal the community decision that banned her from the site. MLauba 08:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The rationales for the administrative action adopted against the users in question are clearly explained in the ANI reports here and here, just for reference. SuperMarioMan 20:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:PeterVanSant.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:PeterVanSant.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, Wikid77 here again. That image appears to be very close to qualifying for fair-use display. This type of image, to be allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages, must be used in a live article and must be considered "iconic" such as being THE photo used by CBS. Note that a person's photo is allowed for fair-use display because of being a specific photo (an iconic publicity photo), rather than being an image which merely identifies that person. As another example, a person's photo displayed by the police qualifies as a fair-use photo when described in a article as being a "mugshot" for the arrest, or "photo displayed in police hall of shame" or such. For a publicity photo, the article must concentrate on the use of that photo as being the "CBS publicity photo" for the person, and state similar wording in the article. Again, the key concept is that a specific photo is being displayed, not a general photo of a person, and hence the specific photo avoids the catch "freely licensed media could reasonably be found", because no free photo would be that particular, specific publicity photo. It's all a matter of the wording in the article: same photo, but always noted, in the article text, as being THE publicity photo used by organization "WXYZ". Specifically, an article could state,

"John Smith has worked for WXYZ since 2007, as noted in his biography webpage at WXYZ.com, which also displays his publicity photo (see photo at top). In that photo he is shown with gray hair and wearing a necktie, as typical attire worn on some broadcasts."

Or use similar wording, always noting the photo as being a "specific photo" not just a picture of him. If the image gets deleted, then re-upload later, after moving the article into the main article space. As you know, a fair-use photo is not allowed in talk-pages or user-space drafts. Also, an admin who does not like the guy might still push to delete the photo for some other vague reason. As always, this message is just a friendly reminder, so feel free to do as you choose. I don't want to seem demanding, as if writing in the ominous, threatening tone that some have used against you! I always want you to feel welcomed, as a valuable member. I have read your draft about Van Sant, so I see you are quite proficient, and I already conclude: Misplaced Pages is you. Never forget that you are a very valuable member of WP: many admins fight each other and get overly upset and quit after 2 years. Perhaps they realized they wasted their life by reading every word of a person's talk-page and looking to start a fight. Anyway, I hope you will return from time to time, and perhaps find that the Wikimedia Foundation managers have dealt with the people who threatened you. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy of fair-use rationale

If a photo gets deleted, or you wish to upload a different photo, then below is that rationale-text which you can copy back, for the next time:

As required, I noted as being a small photo, "Low_resolution = yes, JPEG format with only 10 kb of data". That rationale-text can only be used for a live article, not for a draft page. Often, the most frustrating part of rabid deletions is forgetting to keep a separate copy somewhere, as the basis for the next one to create. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

After several attempts to remind you to edit in a collegial manner and avoid the confrontational tone indicative of a persistent battleground mentality, this edit offers more of the same. Upon your return, you are again instructed to focus on content and to cut out the sniping, snide comments, innuendo at suppressing the truth and focus on constructive contributions. MLauba 13:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And more of the same

Our rule about assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. Judging by your most recent additions to Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher, you are still intent on spreading innuendo, attacking, ascribing motives on other editors, you are trying to use arbitration as a threat to bully and intimidate others, but beyond your continued persistence in treating Misplaced Pages like a battleground, your persistent refusal to desist from violating the BLP policy after having been warned about it multiple times requires another time-out. This is getting tiresome. Once your block expires, you will have three options:

1. To accept, at long last, to edit in a productive and collegial manner. This includes also to recognize when you can't win an argument, doing so in good grace and refraining from using inflammatory language about the other editors whose arguments prevailed
2. To bring an arbitration case, and in this case you are highly advised to file it or shut up about it
3. To continue in the same manner, demonstrating that blocks aren't getting the message through and that a community ban will be required to protect the encyclopedia against the manner of your contributions.

And to make it perfectly clear, you aren't being blocked for what you are saying but the manner you chose to express it. MLauba 21:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The allegation that my comments about Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini violate WP:BLP is completely false. All statements are fully sourced 100%. Please provide an example of where they are not. PhanuelB (talk) 7:09 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

However, you still haven't addressed the main reason for your block, which is your combative attitude and battleground mentality. TNXMan 11:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

PhanuelB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The request was to challenge one allegation. The allegation or battlefield mentatlity is close. I deny it, but it's close. The request here is to challenge the false allegation of WP:BLP violations. I deny that utterly and absolutely and deserve a detailed review. A note: the allegations that other editors are banning a large number of WP:RS because they disagree with their POV is supported by the evidence and facts. I repeat that the WP:BLP violations against Amanda Knox are grave because the article ignores the vast majority of reliable sources who have condemned the tribunal. Is arbitration the proper venue for that? Probably. So If I'm going to be accused of violating WP:BLP for lack of sources it should be stated where it was done. I don't care about the 7 day block, the issue is to be exonerated of one allegation. PhanuelB (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked becaus of battleground-like conduct, notably by saying "The "consensus" of a dozen or so people is diabolically opposed to what all the reliable sources are saying. The reliable sources banned from this article talk of public lynchings, hate, and witch trial hysteria. If Misplaced Pages gets burned on this one they will have earned it." (). This unblock request does not adequately address this problem with your conduct.  Sandstein  13:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi. Wikid77 here. Thank you for your patience: you are a valuable member of Misplaced Pages, but have become a victim of questionable allegations, again. Apparently, the dubious charge of BLP violations is difficult to verify, so the focus has been on any reason to continue this block. Complex BLP issues should be addressed in a different venue (after the block expires): if you do not (someday) clear your name of "BLP vio" then it remains, on your record, as if true. I think a major problem with your remark about "If Misplaced Pages gets burned" is the interpretation that the WP project (as a whole) will have earned adverse consequences, even if that was not the intention of the posted message. Hence, some administrators will feel that retaining the current 7-day block is a protection against similar comments. However, you had stated, 5 days earlier, that you had "great respect for Misplaced Pages" (this edit, 31-July-2010), but these admins might not have seen that comment. At this point, if you wish to go to arbitration, then I will request to join the discussion, as well. I know it can be frustrating to be singled out and accused of "battleground mentality" when many other people are also battling. A military action where there are no other people battling is called an "instant victory" not a battle. You seem to have exposed yet another flaw in WP policies: the concept of having a "battleground mentality" seems nearly impossible as a one-person problem. I apologize that I did not see, earlier, the absurdity in such a policy. If they want to continue citing WP:BATTLE, they need to list all participants to verify that all others are "peaceniks spreading love" on the talk-page. As far as BLP violations, I noticed that you were NOT the one making an unsourced accusation about a living person being a covert ghostwriter for an activist group (OMG!). Because some people get away with all kinds of policy violations, while others are blocked without valid reason, it is important to take some issues to arbitration, to at least see if others can follow your lines of reasoning. This project isn't called "Geniuspedia", so there is no guarantee that enough people, here, will ever understand, but it is perhaps the next step in elevating awareness. Yes, people have asked for why an article is considered notable, when there are so many similar crimes, but the inserted text listing the notable controversies was quickly deleted after insertion. Almost every avenue to avoid censorship has been tried, so that provides the extensive evidence you have needed to justify an arbitration. This 7-day block is just more evidence to present with your case. By now, you have probably read the arbcom policy, and learned:

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_arbitration
• a key point against you might be "no other editors" agree with you (because they were banned!).
• if the arbcom group starts to side against you, resisting them might lead to topic-ban of 6 months.
• beware false agreements, where opponents pretend, "okay you were right and can edit now" but they delete later.
• expect to need to request enforcement of arbcom decisions in your favor.
• if people violate so many policies to avoid "probably innocent" will they heed arbcom?
• if people violate all arbcom rules, don't angrily accuse them and get a long block.

Again, feel free to ignore these opinions, and plan your actions depending on your own ideas about the situation. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:03 (revised 04:50), 12 August 2010

PhanuelB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have twice submitted this form which challenged some but not all of allegations made against me. I don't care about the 7 day block. As stated before the allegation of battlefield mentality is close. In both cases the reviewer refused to address the issue of the specific allegations I wish to challenge. As clearly stated above I challenge the allegation of WP:BLP violations. Statements about Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini are completely and absolutely sourced so they aren't BLP violations. Discussion of the allegations against these individuals is central to NPOV treatment of Amanda Knox. The Murder of Meredith Kercher article is completely devoid of NPOV. The issue is being exonerated of the false allegation of WP:BLP violations. I don't even understand the details of the complaint. I also challenge the assertion of intimidation. Stating an intent to seek arbitration under Misplaced Pages's rules (which I do in fact intend to do at a time of my choosing) is not intimidation.

Decline reason:

I'm not going to address the BLP issues, as there's no need: battleground/intimidation is bloody obvious. Basically saying "if I don't get my way, I'm going to ArbCom" is intimidation, full stop. "Do, or do not do: there is no try". File your ArbComm request, or STFU about it. This type of battleground and intimidation is 1000% against the collegial attitude we expect from editors: be happy it's only 7 days. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I regret that the environment here has degraded into gruff, irritated people who act as if all your help, in carefully analyzing the various policy violations, is a drain on their time. As you and others have noted, over the past weeks, there have been disproportionate efforts to block the expansion of extensively sourced text about a notable case. This is not some attempt to promote an "arm-chair CSI" but rather, numerous professional CSIs, or other investigators, whose professional opinions are being excluded from the article. Anywhere, a call by Donald Trump to boycott an entire nation is headline news, to be stated in the intro to any article about that topic. When a financial leader advises, "Boycott" - people listen. Your frustration is well understood by Christians:

In some Christian doctrines, righteous indignation is considered the only form of anger which is not sinful, e.g., when Jesus drove the money lenders out of the temple.

Meanwhile, it is becoming obvious, from all the hostile reactions, the admin structure appears over-worked and strained to deal with any more issues, where many people have fought for months (but not battleground fights, ya right), to thwart the expansion of sourced text, despite protection by WP:NOTCENSORED. The general atmosphere of unpleasant accusations, seems to leave everyone else full of anger, with no zest for actually improving Misplaced Pages. I have heard that admin participation is declining: message boards are posting: "Backlog of requests need work" and the admin-burnout rate appears quite high. You seem to make more progress in writing other, new articles, and waiting for the day when more information will be accepted into the mainstream. I think there is ample evidence to create a Wikibooks entry, for use in teaching others about court procedures, false confessions, witch hunts, pre-trial publicity, prejudicing the jury, etc. I am fully expecting an ArbCom group to reply there is too little interest, among the current Misplaced Pages editors, to try to defend having an NPOV-balanced article, while others constantly want to pretend there is little evidence to decide events one way or the other. Just write an extensive draft Wikibook, about all the facts reported to date, and that could be used to extract text to expand the balanced coverage, from week to week. It appears that it might be easier to become an approved admin, yourself, to help with the work backlog, rather than gain approval to expand text for NPOV-balance. Misplaced Pages's key principle WP:WELCOME of "Be Welcoming" seems to have tarnished, and people are just too overwhelmed, by trivia, to care about decisions currently setting some major, worldwide legal precedents. It looks as though you will need to beg for time to be treated fairly, and I can't say the outcome would be fair, anyway. This project is drowning in 3.4 million articles and 13 million users, with no way to direct those people to focus on important articles. I am frustrated, by seeing how you are being frustrated in your efforts to think about the big picture, here. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back (but...)

Welcome back Phanuel. I don't think it is impossible that editors on MoMK will be able to work together from here on in, and it would be good to draw a line.

However, please let me draw your attention to some of the features of your comments made today, which I think are examples you might want to think about in terms of your overall approach.

Firstly, you start by saying something is a fabrication. I am not sure who originally inserted the material you are referring to, but you appear to be commenting on the behaviour of an editor and failing to WP:AGF.

Secondly, you make a claim that a living person was at some point living beyond his means and that that this implies he was living off ill-gotten gains. This appears to be your synthesis. Do any Reliable Sources make a similar sythesis? If not, then I would suggest that this is against WP:BLP and should be removed. You also speculate on the likelihood that the same living person stole money from a murder victim. As far as I am aware, there are no Reliable Sources that point to this. If you know differently, then please share, but otherwise I think this should also be deleted.

Thirdly, the issue you are posting about has been resolved. Your post continues the discussion, but its contents don't seem to be anything to do with the issue that had been raised. Instead you talk about your opinion of Rudy Guede and make a generalised claim about the quality of the article (if would be better, as I have said before, if you made specific claims about what specifically you think is wrong). Your comments to not appear to be connected to any dicsussion of content which might provide a basis for further discussion. This looks like an example of WP:SOAPBOX.

I don't mean to just jump down your throat as soon as you are back on the page, but please have a think about whether this style of post, which has by now become very familiar to other editors, is really doing anything to improve the article. If you continue is this way, you may just be a new collision-course, which will not be productive for you. In general, please to stick to dicussing content and propsals rather than veering off into monologues which, you must surely realise by now, are not getting you anywhere.

Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed your posting about Guede as you still do not seem to comprehend that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as article pages. You cannot allege that Guede was dealing drugs or speculate on the source of his income based on some unstated claim that he didn't have any means of support. Even if you can prove he didn't have a reliable income through reliable sources, you still can't do it. I'd also be wary about claiming that information is fabricated unless, again, you have reliable quoted sources to back that up. Please take this as a final warning - if you violate WP:BLP on the talk page again I will block you. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The statements are fully sourced. The allegations of WP:BLP violations by me against Guede are false. Please see that the text is restored.

From the CBS 48 Hours Documentary A Long Way from Home 4-Apr-08:

Peter Van Sant:"Ciolino, talking to the owner of the bar, learned that Rudy had even been banned from Merlin's because he tried to rob a bartender at knifepoint."

Paul Ciolino:"We know that Rudy has no visible means of support and is able to pay rent, go to clubs, and do all kinds of things,"

PVS:"Why would Rudy have targeted that house, of all places, to look for money? These are a bunch of college student,"

PC:"Rent is due at that time of the month. It was the 1st. And rent’s due. So everybody knows college students are gathering up the rent at that time," Ciolino theorizes.

PVS:"Police told Ciolino Meredith took out 250 euros the day she was murdered and the money is missing. Rudy’s fingerprints were found on her purse."

Angel Face by Barbie Nadeau:

"He lived on the periphery of the university scene in Perugia and could easily pass for a student. He was known to be a small-time drug dealer." P103

Bob Graham Express.UK 25-Aug-10

"It reveals the third person convicted of killing British student Meredith Kercher had committed six serious crimes over 33 days before the killing. But robberies carried out by small-time drug dealer Rudy Guede were ignored by Italian authorities, raising suspicions that he was a police informer."

Nick Squires Telegraph.co.uk 5-Dec-09

"Guede was already well known to police by the time he killed Miss Kercher. As well as being a drug dealer with a criminal record for minor drugs offences"

Nick Pisa Mail Online 29-Oct-08

"He was known to police after being stopped and searched several times and was known as a petty thief and small time drug dealer."

PhanuelB (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, another thing that I think is a problem with your style is that, instead of answering questions and points raised by editors, you very often tend to just post a load of quotes which miss the point. Please read again what I wrote above, and think about how you might be more careful in future. Black Kite appears prepared to block you again. However, if you avoid the types of problems I have described then there will be no reason for this to happen. Please also consider that your current approach is never going to succeed in achieving the consensus amongst editors required to make significant changes to the article. There is no point to you just carrying on regardless, because you are likely to either be permanently blocked or just go from short block to short block, and even if that didn't happen you would just continue to fail to get anything changed as regards the article. --FormerIP (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes; Phanuel, you still don't seem to understand the difference between facts, speculation and synthesis. You alleged, in your talkpage posting, that Guede was paying the rent at the time of the killing by dealing drugs. Now, it is completely possible that he was, but you can't synthesise that even if you have reliable sources that say he had drugs involvement in the past. Do you see the difference?

Also, you are further speculating on possible motives for the claim that Guede stole from Kercher's purse. This is also synthesis and cannot stand. One thing I would point out though - if you say that having a wealthy sponsor would make Guede less likely to steal, surely your theory that he was making large amounts of money through drug dealing would also make it less likely? This seems contradictory. Nevertheless, both theories are merely speculation and don't belong here. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Details about wording

6-Sep-2010: I see that people are being very "technical" about the wording of your posts. In general, try to avoid text that says someone "is something" rather than "did something". Even though other people get away with attacking someone (such as writing, "She is a murderer" - don't write that), try to focus on people's actions instead, such as, "She was tried for murder but the conviction was overturned by appeal and she was granted a new trial, presumed innocent". It's the difference between writing, "He is a racist" versus "People said he made racist remarks". The difference reminds me of the Christian adage, "Hate the sin not the sinner". Hence, avoid negative text that says someone is a drug dealer, a petty thief, or a burglar, but focus on he returned to the scene of the crime the next day to claim he didn't do it, so he had no problem returning to the scene of a crime and acting innocent. I think it is valid to say the judge at trial wrote that the man took a knife from the school kitchen (as the judge's opinion) even though not convicted of stealing a knife. There is also another "shade of gray" in Italy: a person can be searched by the police in Milan, then "booked" for possession of stolen property, possession of a deadly weapon, or illegal entry, but then be released to a train by the police, rather than charged with crimes sent to trial. Because of my topic ban, I am not allowed to discuss the specifics of the AK case (until Sept. 11), but meanwhile, think of the "rules of order" about Misplaced Pages text, as focusing on actions rather than a "person is-a something". So, the text can mention that a judge concluded someone was stealing a computer, but not call that person a "burglar" in a Misplaced Pages article. I hope that helps clarify the subtle differences in the wording. Also, perhaps some people don't realize the first appeal in Italy allows a "new trial based on the evidence" (hence, overturns the verdict else why have a trial of a guilty person). So, upon accepting the first appeal, the suspect is again "presumed innocent" but another appeal might not allow a trial de novo and hence no longer presumes the suspect as being innocent after the first appeal is over. In the U.S., a person might be seen as "guilty" during the appeal unless the appeal ends with granting a new trial, big difference. While awaiting a new trial, it would be a vio of WP:BLP to say this person was convicted of sexual assault, murder (etc.) because they are presumed innocent to be judged for guilt in the new trial. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/10/48hours/main4005725_page5.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
2. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/170053/Killer-of-Meredith-Kercher-s-crimes-were-ignored
3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/6732245/Amanda-Knox-trial-Rudy-Guede-profile.html
4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1081457/Rudy-Guede-Portrait-Merediths-murderer-begins-30-year-sentence.html