Misplaced Pages

...and from the well-known essay on Mentorship: "Involuntary mentorship has a very poor track record and is not recommended". For example, the mentee can feign acceptance and do squat all with the advice and assistance provided. The best form of mentorship is by doing, and as this editor shows no desire to "do" according to norm, then go elsewhere and learn to get along with others, then come back when you're willing to "do" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• I understand where you are coming from, but, of there's even the slightest chance that mentoring will get her on the right track even reluctantly, I would rather go for it.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,363,273) 12:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cyberpower, Mercy11 and Nat Gertler.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 22:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support As per Captain_Screebo,Timotheus Canens and Hersfield the consensus as per this section and preceding section almost all favour indef block or Mentorship if it fails then indef block but the user has declined mentorship twice as Bwilkins and WTT rightly say involuntary mentorship will not work for her.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - actually - according to my quick assessment, it was eight all before your comment. Prefer mentorship, or just letting the natural course of events through the users editing to occur. Youreallycan 10:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I was going to close this as no consensus - Its unfair to leave it open longer when its clear that users are split on this. Please find another solution and close this. Youreallycan 22:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: She has requested to be adopted by Worm That Turned.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,579,504) 18:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

  The threat of an indefinite block changed her mind? No surprise there, more time-wasting to ensue. We'll be back here soon enough. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

  Maybe, maybe not. It could be because of the threat or she could've finally realized that a mentor is necessary. Let's see what happens. I'm willing to see this through and commit to observing this.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,581,506) 18:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

  Have you checked out any of Androzaniamy's talk page conversations yet? I'm confident they will change your mind. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

  I have, otherwise, I wouldn't have participated here. I'm believer of second chances and it's possible she turned over a new leaf and it's possible she is doing it reluctantly. What matter's to me is that she is taking personal initiative on her own.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,583,559) 18:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Editor has agreed to adoption. There is not sufficient consensus for an block. Opinions vary as to whether adoption is a solution or a waste of time; however further discussion is unlikely to change any editor's mind at this point. Nobody Ent 18:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• You've already made your opinion of this proposed block, which is why I reverted your attempted close. The editor did not "agree" to adoption, she only "agreed" to avoid a block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why they accept a mentor, just that they do. - There is not even any consensus for a block - there is as much consensus that you acted poorly and harassed the user as there is to block anyone - your continued involvement in this reflects badly on you, it would be better if you avoided further commenting and further reverting. Youreallycan 19:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's only been two days, it's not a SNOW situation, and there's no pressing need for a closure now, much less one by an involved non-administrator (we have a well established process for discussion closure). There's no harm in letting discussion play out. Swarm 19:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

We do??? I would sincerely appreciate link to documentation of well established process. (Previous request here and some discussion here) Nobody Ent 22:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, obviously. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

  I think it would be best you remain uninvolved in this discussion.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,586,709) 19:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - as Bwilkins says, they've been given two offers of adoption already, and they were told to pick one weeks ago. Now that a block is being discussed, they're obviously running back to Worm. Although I have the utmost confidence in WTT as a mentor, I think it would be an utter waste of time in this particular instance. Swarm 19:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - it may be a waste of my time, but I'd say it's my time to waste! I fully intend to accept Androzaniamy's request. She can see here that the community is almost at the end of its tether, which hopefully will focus her on improving. I'm more than willing to summarily block an editor if I see no chance of improvement, and I would do so in heartbeat here too. Worm · (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• If my only objection was that I thought mentorship would be ineffective, I'd still oppose a block in favor of mentorship. I have complete faith in you as a mentor, and as a sysop who will block if need be. My objection is based on the fact that I don't believe this user even wants mentorship. The problem is that they had several weeks to voluntarily choose a mentor, and didn't do so. Instead, they run to a mentor after the community began discussing a block. It appears so completely disingenuous, that I don't see the point. So it's not so much that I think you'd be wasting your time with a good faith editor who wants to improve. It's more that mentorship isn't an arbitrary get out of jail free card. Swarm 02:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Block her and get this over with. She has shown that she is unwilling to see the light. While I highly respect WTT as a colleague, I personally think that he is wasting his time here. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• There are some very able and highly intelligent people who function really well in the particular fields that they are attracted to. However, these people find it difficult to function in the socio-linguistic area, particularly in absorbing the different registers. Misplaced Pages has a confusing number of registers, Article pages (where, say, pop music pages have a different register from history), Article talk pages, User pages, User talk pages,policies,etc. There are various degrees of camaraderie between individuals and groups where editors use different ways of communicating (such as fish slapping).The people I am talking about find humour problematic as it relies on shared social understanding. They become flustered when they have to deal with a lot of people and are particularly likely to react in ways that many would consider to be badly when they feel threatened. Does Misplaced Pages have a place for these people as editors? They have as much or little to offer in their chosen fields as anyone else. Maybe it would be better to show some understanding, back off, let WTT try mentoring and give him our fullest support.--Harkey (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support Per WP:COMPETENCE, I'd support a temporary block (long enough for the user to rethink their editing style) if it can be shown that the user has received an escalating series of warnings, whether templated or otherwise. It's fine to advise a user against certain behaviour but we can't jump from such advice to a block without ensuring that one of those advices warned of blocking as a possibility. ClaretAsh 04:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

possible violation of Misplaced Pages:Bot_policy specifically WP:MASSCREATION

Please see Special:Contributions/M.casanova mass creating film pages all with content directly copied from with most having no indications of notability, other than inclusion in this particular database. Will notify right after this Gaijin42 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no violation, he is neither a bot nor is he creating copyright violations due to the disclaimer at the bottom "This work by FCAT Festival de Cine Africano de Tarifa is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." and he is crediting them in his creation of articles. I endorse his creation of articles on African films which are poorly covered, but I would like to see a few more sources adde dto them. I think a discussion would have been more productive first before a mass AFD you've now gone for.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not claiming copyright violation, I saw the release. That being said, I do question the value of an article which is 100% copied from another site. We do not need to be a database of african films,- obviously such a database already exists to be copied from. We have had the discussion before regarding how automated one needs to be before even manual action is encroaching upon the masscreation policy. Regarding the discussion, it started somewwhat organically, as I was doing new page patrol, doing individual nominations. When I noticed a large number of similar articles, I moved to this venue. I think "mass delete" is somewhat of a judgement call considering the incredibly massive number of articles created by this user using this process. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

African films are very poorly covered on wikipedia. However many he creates its likely to still pale in comparison to our coverage of US/UK films. I believe he is addressing systemtic bias, but his articles ideally need another source or two to prove notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that any film which can have 2 or 3 sources found would meet the notability requirements (and I would perhaps allow for lesser sources considering average state of african press etc.) However, the systematic bias in this case I think is largely a reflection of systematic bias in the media. While lack of coverage of African films by the press and awards may certainly be a real issues, it cannot be wikipedias place to fix that issue. We have notability standards, content which does not meet those standards should not be in. In our earlier debates regarding your mass creation of articles, you used the argument that natural locations, villages, etc were inherently notable - an argument I reluctantly acceded to. However, we have very clear criteria of what makes a film notable, and if we ignore those criteria for this instance we might as well delete all such policies and let everyone greate an article about their high school band, or in the examples you provided in our earlier discussion - about every pokemon char, episode of American tv, or character etc, . Gaijin42 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember any previous discussion as its been a very long time since I mass created anything. I don't believe in inherent notability, but I believe certain traditionally encyclopedic topics almost always certainly meet requirements for an encyclopedia and the vast majority can be expanded and sourced, I have a 99.9% success rate with AFDs thrown at me and proved this. Films are not really traditional encyclopedic subjects so the notability at times may be questionable. I haven't researched the series of films the editor has created, but the screening at a major African festival at least is something in terms of assessing notability. I think you'll find a few of them maybe can be expanded using other sources. Why not ask the editor to try to expand a few with other sources?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this is really an Admin issue (at least not anymore) but since this is the place designated for discussion, I'd like to echo Dr. Blofeld's suggestion that rather than lots of AfDs right now, a more constructive route here would be to withdraw the AfDs for the time being and meanwhile suggest to M.casanova that he might slow down a bit on the creation of new articles, and spend some of that time on additional sourcing for each article. I took a look at one of them, a Mozambican film, and I was finding some possible references in Portuguese, complicated further because the film seemed to have several different titles. It's unquestionably the case that African film is underdocumented, so I have to think that what M.casanova is trying to do here could be a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is an admin issue... there's policy violation going on here... maybe no need for some sanction but it's appropriate at WP:AN. Shadowjams (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

These all look like valid articles in an area that's not very well covered. Endorse the point about slowing down and taking a bit more time to establish notability so we don't end back here. Lugnuts (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, slow down. Let's at least give a feigned tribute to the virtue of quality as a complement to quantity.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a mass creation policy and whether you wrote a perl script to do it or you're fast with copy-paste, this is in a semi-automated fashion and the bot policy should apply. We have that policy so that these sorts of mass creations are preemptively examined because when they're wrong (or even if they're right) they create more work and trouble for everybody else. This isn't a question of notability so much as it is having a workable system.

I'm not so sure that these creations deserve a block... although I do think there's some policy violation going on here. I also don't think Blofeld's response addresses the real issue. Even if this is an under-represented area of the encyclopedia, mass creations that are copied from a source or otherwise generated in some automated way, are semi-automated for purposes of the bot policy. The subsequent edits appear to be automated as well, though I'm not sure. Shadowjams (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I picked one of them, La Robe du temps, and pumped it up a bit. I did not find much critical commentary, but certainly it has been noted by various independent sources. My guess is that almost all of the films featured at the African Film Festival of Cordoba are in fact notable. The articles just need a bit of work. I fully concur with Arxiloxos - the AfD's should be cancelled, since they show lack of prior research. M.casanova should slow down a bit and improve the existing entries before making more, but no harm is being done. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I note without comment that several of the articles have .fr and .es equivalents started by the same editor. I see no significant comments in .es but some discussion about the FCAT license and about failure to respond to warnings in fr:Discussion utilisateur:M.casanova. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy/pasting is definitely not a semi-automated policy; you have to do all of the work yourself. There is no good reason to complain about this series of article creations unless you object to the content itself. I understand the issues with lack of sourcing; I'm not addressing that at all because I'm not sure what to think about it. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I want to point out the wonderful work done by Aymatth2 on La Robe, clearly indicating the notability of that film. I have withdrawn the AFD nomination for that particular film. However, I think that example proves my point - There is such a thing as a provably notable african documentary, which meets our RS/V/Notability/NFilm standards. The ones that do not meet that standard should not be being created. Especially not 1000s at a time with no original content being provided. Misplaced Pages is not a directory. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• From my pov, African cinema is a neglected area where we do need to improve coverage, but that the creator of these stubs is strongly encouraged to spend some time finding other sources for the films, independent of the festival website. Gaijin42 and others are of course free to continue to tag articles for notability or nominate them for deletion if he wishes, but I would ask that he do the necessary WP:BEFORE work prior to doing so. As for me, I'll add some sources , when I have the time. There is a finite number of films selected to this or any festival, and I imagine some of films already have articles. I wonder how big an impact this is actually going to have? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • A follow up note: I've looked through a handful number of the nominated articles and most, so far, many are easily referenced though a combination of Google Search and Translate, with bona fide foreign language RS. The deletion nominations by Gaijin42 appear to me to show a lack of WP:BEFORE work, in the cases I've looked at. I think the mass deletion nomination is more disruptive than the creation of the articles and I ask that these deletions please cease until the matter is settled. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Steven Rubenstein

, Steven Rubenstein, is I believe user:Slrubenstein - if so I must regretfully report that there are credible reports of his decease. Details are sketchy right now but anyone who knows Steven is requested to contact his friend Greg Ruf, I can pass on any messages but please use email not my talk page. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

For anyone who has just seen this, there is information on his Facebook page, reported by his friend Greg Ruf, who has left his contact details there. Unfortunately, it does seem to be credible. It is very recent, and there are no details yet. It is devastating. Steve was a great Wikipedian and a wonderful human being. SlimVirgin 00:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What, no! Fuck! I just talked to him last week. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I know, it doesn't seem possible. SlimVirgin 01:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This is such sad news...Steve was such a great person..he will be missed!! Dreadstar ☥ 02:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a big shock. I can only echo what Magnus and others have written. Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sad news indeed. He will truly be missed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm hesitant to divert this thread from condolences and expressions of sadness, but if we're satisfied that Steven is indeed sadly deceased, is it time to implement the procedures at Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines? According to that guideline, we should remove his admin rights and fully protect his userpage, possibly with a note explaining that he is deceased. Perhaps somebody who knew him would like to write something tasteful, and the page can be left unprotected for a few hours? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I just posted over at WP:BN to ask for a crat to deal with the admin tools, I agree the rest of it should be left to users who knew him best and/or are familiar with what his family would want. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done My sympathies to his family. MBisanz 20:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That's terrible, a blow to us all. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

IP hopping through an entire range

He is also edit warring: , , , . Radiopathy •talk• 15:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears the ISP functions to "promote interoperability for wireless data subscribers" so it could be a coffee house or something. You might want to get the high-profile Harrison article semi'd for awhile at WP:RFPP due to the on-going warring, but if their other edits are over a wide range of song articles, you're probably stuck playing whack-a-mole for now -- unless an admin determines a range block is feasible. For anyone curious, these IPs geolocate to the US, so it isn't the Russian EL spammer. Rgrds. --64.85.221.180 (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe AT&T's 3G IP addresses are in 166.*.*.* blocks. Also, my roommate's Verizon LTE phone gets something out of a VZW IP block when it's on 3G, but a WDSPco block when it's on 4G.~Crazytales (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are all the recent anonymous edits from 166.182.3.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). I would be tempted to block this /24 range for a month but would like some assurance that these are all bad edits. Those knowledgable about the topic might confirm that fact. The very rapid cycling of addresses (never the same twice, even two minutes later) while they remain focused just on famous musicians suggests the person is not editing in good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the difs after my post above which states, "He's also edit warring", you should see that not all of his edits are in good faith. Secondly, most of the personnel sections of The Beatles's song articles, which he had been adding instruments to, are already sourced, and any additions need to be discussed and likewise cited; this is not being done. Radiopathy •talk• 23:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Depending on the networking setup of the provider, the editor themselves may not be in control of this hopping. It could be a proxying system with multiple servers and load balancing, sending each request through the most lightly loaded server at the moment of the request. In fact, it would be rather technically difficult to force such rapid IP changes from the user's end. Yworo (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would likely be difficult for the end user to force rapid IP changes, but also note that most load balancers make some attempt to take the same route from a particular source to a particular destination for a certain amount of time, precisely because IP changes tend to break Web applications' sessions, particularly webmail applications. — madman 01:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Since IPs from this range continued with the same type of editing on 13 March, I went ahead with the /24 block as proposed. A large volume of unsourced changes to articles about musicians by a fluctuating IP. Other admins may lift or modify this block as they think best. Let me know if you see IPs from outside this range continuing in a similar way on Beatles-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Propose removal of topic ban of Tom harrison

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The restriction is overturned. NW (Talk) 12:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrator Tom harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic banned indefinitely over comments he made on 9/11 conspiracy theories under the findings of the arbcom ruling Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Standard discretionary sanctions and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Purpose of Misplaced Pages (specifically use of the site for advocacy or propaganda). The user making the complaint is The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) and is well known among many noticeboards as well as an inclusionist for many unreliable conspiracy theories within 9/11 articles. His complaint against a well respected and established administrator was sustained. The primary administrator that proposed the ban has since relinquished his admin tools under a cloud related to this issue . he has said his decision should not be permanent . An affirming administrator seems to base the premise on a permanent ban on whether a sourced statement is accurate . The source is Conspiracy theories and Secret Societies for Dummies, pg 95-96 and was provided by Tom. Israeli and specifically Jewish conspiratorial involvement in 9/11 and many other negative historical events is widely sourced and practically the prevailing viewpoint in the non-Israel countries in the middle east. The arbcom decision section cited was to prevent original research and unreliably sourced conspiracy theories from being included in mainstream articles on 9/11 articles. There is quite a bit of difference in saying that "9/11 was caused by Bush and the Jews" (poorly sourced and original research) and "Their is a widely held belief in middle eastern countries that Jews were involved in 9/11." (very well sourced and documented). Exploring and explaining why and how those beliefs evolved using sources is not a violation of the Arbcom decision on conspiracy theories. Indeed the basis for the Timotheus_Canens (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) reads more like he is disputing the wording of well-sourced content and not finding that the principles of the arbitration decision were violated.

Furthermore, prior to the implementation of a topic ban require "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." The uninvolved admin doesn't appear to have warned Tom that he believed his edits may be in violation of the arbcom decision. If he was relying on the warning of an editor with the the history of The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks), his interpretation of the sanctions portion of the decision is severely lacking. It stands to reason that the intent of naming an uninvolved admin AND requiring a warning is to put an editor on notice that a neutral party finds their edits objectionable. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions. There is no indication that Tom knew or should have known that uninvolved administrators would find his content to be objectively flawed when the only prior complaint comes from a problematic editor with a history of POV pushing. Indeed the lack of a specific warning by the banning admin violatestes the discrtionary sanction policy and the topic ban should have been vacated immediately. The bottom line, though, is that after 30 days, Tom has not challenged this decision and graciously accepted it, even in it's fundamental unfairness and the cloud under which the blocking admin resigned. The topic ban was applied outside the scope of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions and the admin community should reduce this topic ban to the thirty days time served. Such a remedy is even supported by the initial complainant and is in the best interest of the project. --DHeyward (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of protocol, is there a reason why this can't be handled through the prescribed venue of WP:AE? (See the general instructions for discretionary sanctions.)

As a practical matter, is there a reason why Tom Harrison isn't participating in this appeal? Unless there's been some off-wiki communication, as far as I can tell his only involvement has been the notice on his talk page that the appeal was filed on his behalf. While I don't have any doubts about DHeyward's good faith, I do know that these sorts of third-party surprise interventions tend not to run very smoothly.

As a stylistic matter, the appeal could really use some whitespace. The big wall-o-text is rather daunting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I was able to read DHeywards comments in less than a minute. Firstly...AE doesn't get as many responses as here. Secondly, Tom Harrison has worked on 9/11 related articles for 7 years and has made thousands of edits to them...the "indefinite ban" applied here was based on a few edits that weren't vandalism, weren't inaccurate and weren't unsourced to reliable sources. The only question here is whether Tom could have worded the items better. Lastly, my take on Tom is that he has no intention of apologizing for his edits...I wouldn't either...why would anyone plead for clemency over this? What, so they can be given the right to resume the thankless task of dealing with POV pushers? The issue here is the preposterously applied topic ban and the even more ridiculous "indefinite" term of it. I would have to say this is akin to sending someone to prison for jaywalking.MONGO 08:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The instructions for overturning another admins action such as a decision to topic ban says to bring it to AN or ANI. It's 30 days so hardly an "incident" so I brought it here. The blocking admin no longer seems to participate so this appears to be the forum for undoing another admins actions as it says in the AE page. As an aside, there has been no off-wiki communication. I became aware of the "topic ban" and was essentially floored. I rarely edit Misplaced Pages because it seems fighting for things like this seem to become the main point instead of the project. It was always comforting to come back to Misplaced Pages and see that Tom and others keep watch on these topics and patiently deal with problems. Tom has been much more patient with certain topics and editors and to be permanently topic banned was just over the top. Lastly, I don't want to imply that the admins in the case acted in bad faith or didn't think they were enforcing an ArbCom decision fairly. I do believe they didn't warn Tom on his talk page and give him the opportunity to take a break as the AE decision requires. I don't wish this to become a discussion of whether the AE admins were wrong, but rather does the admin community, in light of 30 days where there has been no issue, feel they can lift the ban. I also feel the AE admins were manipulated by the complainant but that's not the fault of the admins. They are uninvolved and usually unaware of the parties and histories and is what make AE enforcement a double-edged sword and difficult task. There are other administrative forums where the editor in question is well known and would not have been successful in his complaint. As for why Tom has not appealed, it perhaps the same reason I rarely edit there. It's too much drama and fraught with the same nonsense. Whether he chooses to participate in those articles or discussions, I cannot say but you can bet that with a 'topic ban' in place, a simple vandalism revert would be instantly reported by a certain cadre of editors. I request it be lifted for Tom's protection and for the good of the project, not as an admission of wrongdoing or criticism of admins involved. --DHeyward (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support of removal of this ban. Topic banning a conscientious admin in excellent standing on the say-so of a well-known 9/11 conspiracy theory pusher is a miscarriage of justice. I would say (when I'm trying to be nice) that it was caused by over-haste on the part of the admins responsible. Anyway, it violates the spirit of the relevant Arbcom decision and the ethos of this project. What a way to treat people.. ! Bishonen | talk 08:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

• I make no judgement on whether on whether the topic ban should be lifted, but I strongly resent the thinly veiled accusations that the admins at AE acted improperly. Arbitration enforcement is a difficult area to work in, and a thankless task—we deal with the most bitter, partisan disputes on Misplaced Pages, the disputes that ArbCom has given up on and imposed discretionary sanctions, and this often involves sanctioning long-established and otherwise well-respected editors, for which the sanctioned editor and their mates will accuse admin of being biased against them, and when a determination is made that no sanction is warranted, the filing editor and their mates will accuse admins of being biased in favour of the editor in question. However, the admins who decide the result of an AE thread are neutral, uninvolved admins who simply decide whether the conduct of the editor in question is of the required standard, nd if not, what sanction (if any) to impose. Second, the "initial warning" wording means only that the editor must be aware of the discretionary sanctions on a topic area—given that Tom Harrison has previously enforced this remedy (when he was an admin), and requested enforcement of it, nobody could claim in good faith that he was not aware of it. Disclaimer: I have participated in discussions surrounding the inclusion or otherwise of conspiracy theories in the 9/11 article, so I do not consider myself to be an uninvolved administrator, which is also why I abstained from the relevant AE thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I believe the lack of a warning by an involved admin is a procedural error. I am not uninvolved so whether or not their conclusions about Tom's edits are correct is not a fair point for me to bring up. However, it appears they took the "warning" by TDA as sufficient. It is not. If Jeffrey Dahmer had complained to the uninvolved Prison Warden that his choice for a last meal was ignored by Tom Harrison and showed letters where Tom had denied his request, it would be improper for the prison warden to simply rely on Dahmers warnings that he should be served his preferred meal. Dahmer could be correct and be requesting string beans or something, but Tom should have been warned directly by the Prison Warden and not have to interpret whether Dahmers request was proper as Dahmer has a history of requesting rather inappropriate meals. It's the difficult part of enforcement because an uninvolved admin has no knowledge of Dahmer, the meals, the history, etc, and that is why it would have been more appropriate to warn Tom by the admin prior to the ban. Tom has taken it in stride as can be shown by his edit history. Compare it to TDA's last 30 days. --DHeyward (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• HJ Mitchell...I surely concur with your points about the AE admins being willing to put themselves in the thick of things by enforcing arbcom decisions...and recognize this is a thankless admin chore. Being a "law and order" kind of person myself, I generally approve strict adherence to arbcom decisions. When I first approached Mkcat on this issue, I was met with a stonewall...and that was fine, so I offered a fair compromise based on the history of Tom Harrison's generally exemplenary contributions to this subject matter. My compromise was to set a time limit on the ban, 30 days, which to be honest was a stretch for my position since I thought the topic ban was preposterous to begin with. Though we all know that indefinite can mean 1 hour or forever, the vagueness of such a penalty to someone of Tom's history simply seemed unfair, especially considering the filer of this complaint, The Devils Advocate, had himself been sentenced to a 30 day topic ban in the same arena. I recognize it is hard to be able to fully evaluate the editing history of some editors and AE enforcement is generally based on the evidence presented. I believe that penalties should fit the "crime" therefore, myself and some others feel that this penalty is now excessive.--MONGO 17:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Let's ask the AE admins to review and reconsider. It's very easy to cherry pick through anyone's contributions and POV pushers are often extremely adept at doing this in order to deflect attention away from their own behaviour. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• First, I see that the AE case was not provided by Dheyward. Here is the case. Second, Dhey's claims about Mkat "resigning under a cloud" needs context. Here is Mkat's user talk page at the time he resigned. Third, and most importantly, Tim has already said he would review the ban after March 18th. On a side note, I don't particularly like being compared to Jeffrey Dahmer.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oh for goodness sake can we please steer away from the battleground, blame-game, wikilawyering, bickering approach for once? There seems to be a pervasive idea that in order to remove an indefinite topic ban, editors have to prove there was something Wrong with it, or that conversely, if such a topic ban is lifted, that must prove the original admin action was Wrong in some way. Nonsense. Indefinite does not mean infinite and sanctions should be applied with every hope that good contributors will return to contributing fully in the course of time.

One of the most damaging changes to Misplaced Pages that I have noticed in recent years is the growing obsession with whether actions were Right or Wrong, and a proliferation of rules, regulations, bureaucracy and argument to decide. Shades of grey, differences of interpretation, opinion, judgment calls, all get thrown out of the window in a battle to win the argument: after all, nobody wants to be Wrong, do they? The vast amounts of time spent arguing about water under the bridge only serve to polarize and alienate editors.

Tom is a very fine editor, and has been a valuable contributor to 9/11 articles over many years. I would be happy to support the lifting of the topic ban based on an argument that it would be a net positive for the encyclopedia to do so. I oppose removal based on an argument that the original topic ban was Wrong. I do not give a fuck about alleged "procedural errors" that happened over a month ago. Tom crossed a line and it was within the bounds of reason to apply AE, wikilawyering notwithstanding. That doesn't mean the topic ban was Right or Wrong, or that I would have done the exact same thing, but the topic ban was reasonable enough that it is still in place a month later. This is an encyclopedia project, not a court of law. Future improvements are what matter, not past differences. Geometry guy 18:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I really think that whenever someone uses profanity here they think it must make them a tough guy or something...its rather laughable in fact since it doesn't help the argument in the least. If indeed if what you say is correct, then why did the admin who led the topic ban, namely Mkat, abandon the tools under a cloud primarily over this issue? There was a severe COI on that admins part regarding this action...one severe enough that I was prepared to take it to arbcom. Instead of being reasonable, they ran away...Justice is supposed to prevail, yes, even on Misplaced Pages. The penalty should fit the "crime" and in this case, we're talking about the barest minimal of an infraction. YOU can wikilawyer all you wish about the meaning of the term "indefinite"....but such an term is generally reserved for those making repeat infractions over time, vandals and trolls...simply put, Tom Harrison is none of those things and this indefinite topic ban is one of the worst applications of arbitrariness I have seen on this website.--MONGO 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Strong language, sparingly deployed, can be remarkably effective – for instance, in drawing out opinion on style over substance, as in this case. Since I'm not trying to win an argument, I can't possibly be trying to be a tough (nor would I be so dumb!); that's not my approach and never has been. You are of course welcome to read it that way, and also to consider my comment on "indefinite" vs "infinite" to be wikilawyering. Like you, however, I am simply observing practice. I entirely agree with you that Tom Harrison is not a vandal, troll or repeat offender over time; hence even if indefinite topic bans are generally reserved for such situations (which I dispute) that couldn't possibly be the case here, could it? Geometry guy 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on, MONGO, Mkat's self-declared "involvement" was in the ARBPIA topic area and only based on the fact he commented at an RfC to support calling Israeli settlements "settlements" consistent with the resounding global consensus. You misconstrued this as being involvement in the 9/11 topic area because it also happens to mention Muslims and Jews.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Even Mkat themself disagrees with you...hence the self declared "under a cloud" comment when relinquishing their tools....here.--MONGO 20:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Mkat plainly said that he maintained the propriety of every administrative action he took. The "cloud" remark was because several editors with long-standing grievances began pushing for a recall as an apparent response to the reaction the ban got from you and a couple other editors. Don't misrepresent the situation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You have different perceptions about the same events; this is a common phenomenon. Neither of you is going to convince the other that your view is the Right one. Ironically, it doesn't matter a jot, so such bickering is a waste of time and energy. It won't help editors move forward. That is the kernel of my comment. Geometry guy 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think if you view my arguments, you will conclude it is in the best interest of the project to remove the ban. Tom has abided by the the topic ban. He hasn't forum shopped it or looked to get admins disciplined. Nor has the arguments I've presented here. Tom is a conscientious editor and if a respected editor or admin had informed him his edits were not proper, it is beyond question that he would have reassessed his edits. That did not happen. Rather a problematic editor provided evidence, convinced the AE admin that an ARBCOM sanction was justified and it occurred. Tom's contribution to the 9/11 articles, his conscientious attitude and his overall contribution to the project is what justifies lifting the ban. Highlighting discrepancies in the process of failing to warn him is not an attempt to Wikilawyer the result but rather to show that if he had been warned, his history and conscience would have stopped the behavior, just as the ban stopped it without so much as a complaint. Tom hasn't challenged the ban precisely because he chooses not to create the conflict you seem to attribute to this request. The ban should be lifted because Tom's contributions to 9/11 articles significantly outweigh the 11 hour of drama that generated the ban. Tom's demeanor is such that if any respected admin or editor warned him, he would have changed tack and course to be more productive. Nothing demonstrates that more than the last 30 days. --DHeyward (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back on this: I noticed your post before your copyedits to it, but not by many minutes! I think it was a good idea to start this thread for many of the reasons you stated. I would simply encourage you in future to focus on the positives, forward-looking, rather than the negatives, backward-looking. (As a side note, I tend to use "wikilawyer" in a descriptive rather than intentional or pejorative sense: I did not think you were trying to "wikilawyer the result" and I have absolutely no reason to doubt your good faith, so I didn't and don't.) Your response here concentrates much more on the positive focus, apart from the mention of a "problematic editor", and the use of hypotheticals. "What if" is something we can never know for sure. I hope, however, you are encouraged by the positive response to the positive aspects of your request! Geometry guy 00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Geometry guys' comment here, along with Harkey Lodger's earlier one regarding a different specific issue, is one of the most spot on I've seen on the repeated degradation of discussion on the nominally consensus driven not a bureaucracy Misplaced Pages into a reality show contest of picking "winners" and "losers." It is disappointing but not surprising the initial reaction misses the entire big picture point and focuses on the fact that gg used the word "fuck." Nobody Ent 00:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support- The ban is clearly no longer accomplishing anything useful. Reyk _YO! 20:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A few points:

• I am not currently an admin. Planning to be away for a while, I asked for the permissions to be removed just in case. Since then I haven't seen a pressing need to have them reinstated.

• MPOV is "the belief that your own personal viewpoints are neutral. This leads to the associated belief that you are a special expert on the topic, and have particular authority to dictate how the article should read." An administrator must be aboslutely certain he knows what is neutral before topic-banning someone over edits the admin thinks are non-neuteral.

• I don't expect Timotheus Canens will be lifting Mkativerata's topic ban. He says, "The ban was sound when it was imposed, and I can tell you right now that I will not be lifting it until and unless I see some indication that edits of this sort will not be repeated." T. Canens has a clear view of what constitutes neutral editing about 9/11; his view is at varience with the sources; he's the admin with enforcement power, and I'm not; and that's pretty much the end of it.

• Finally, people who want to may read the general reply on my talk page, but the way to really improve the project is to read good sources on the topic (sources not limited to what comes to hand online) and then contribute to improving our pages about 9/11.

Tom Harrison 21:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I commend much of your sentiment here, Tom, but CPOV is confusing neutrality with NPOV. No editor is neutral, but we don't need to be to recognise the difference between attributing opinion (which is NPOV) and stating it in the editorial neutral voice (which is not). Geometry guy 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support of changing topic ban to time served The ban was requested by a user with a history of POV-pushing and an admin who admitted he was 'involved' and resigned under a cloud. Further, this ban is of no benefit to this encyclopedia, given this user's history of positive contribution with over 7,000 edits on the topic. Toa Nidhiki05 21:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the falsehoods. Mkat did not "admit" to being involved with regards to the 9/11 topic area and he was not the only one who supported the indef. Three admins saw the edits as being sufficiently severe to warrant the sanction and there was no confusion on their part about the nature of the edits. Constantly going after me does not in any way take away from the severity of the edits Tom made. Like Geo I would strongly oppose any attempt to overturn this ban as "wrongful" in any way. However, I would support lifting the ban if it is considered that Tom has met the standard set out by Mkat of demonstrating that he will not repeat the kind of edits he was making.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope editors appreciate that the imprecise "under a cloud" cliche effectively smears an editor who is not available to defend themselves; if I ever made such a remark, I would readily strike it. Back on topic, however, I also think reducing topic ban to "time served" is a good recommendation, but suggest that we leave the final call to T. Canens in his review next week. Geometry guy 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support Even Illuminati shape-shifting lizards are allowed to edit on this subject. Pippens (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I support Devil's position here and Geometry guy's that if, if it is considered that Tom has met the standard set out by Mkativerata of demonstrating that he will not repeat the kind of edits he was making, then a removal or a reduction of his editing restrictions can be considered favorably. Youreallycan 23:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support Tom Harrison is a productive editor with 8 years of service and a clean record minus this incident. The incident itself was essentially over wording. (There is no question that some 9/11 conspiracy theories (CT) are anti-Semitic, such as the claim that 4,000 Jews stayed home on 9/11. I'll be happy to provide sources to anyone who doubts this.)

In any case, Tom been instrumental in making our articles on 9/11 better. Misplaced Pages gains nothing by keeping this valued and knowlegable editor banned from this topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Just so everyone is clear on what prompted the topic ban, the following quotes are what Tom sought to insert into the article:

"Ostensibly blaming Israelis, neocons, or greedy financiers, 9/11 conspiracy theories in fact articulate the long-established antisemitic theme of Jews as an international cabal of masterminds manipulating world affairs." - placed in the first paragraph of the lede.

"Overtly blaming the Mossad, disloyal American Jews in government, or profit-seeking developers, 9/11 conspiracy theories continue in the tradition of conspiracy theories generally in presenting the Jews as stateless cosmopolitans who secretly control the world." - inserted at the top of the main theories section, before any of the theories were even described.

"9/11 conspiracy theories, like all conspiracy theories, have their origin in hatred and fear of secret societies, and hatred and fear of Jews." - inserted as the second sentence of the lede.

That all happened, within a single day on the same article. I wasn't cherry-picking his contributions and it wasn't merely suggesting that antisemitism is a common trait of some conspiracy theories as a few editors above imply. The notion that I was somehow "manipulating" the admins as Dhey claims above is patently absurd. No manipulation was necessary. The offense was self-evident. So, I will reiterate, if Tom demonstrates that he won't makes edits like those again, I don't have a problem with him coming back. Even if he just pledged not to do it again I would find that acceptable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite. Just to add more factual information, Tom's above edits are cited to: (1) a PDF by the Anti-Defamation League, which "fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all"; (2) publiceye.org, "researching the right for progressive changemakers" and slate.com; (3) "Conspiracy theories and Secret Societies for Dummies". Yet the information from each of these sources is presented in the editorial neutral voice.

Tom is quite right to suggest that editors should find better sources and use them to improve 9/11 coverage. On this occasion he did not, and was rightly criticized for it. It may be one blemish in an excellent record, but deflecting the blame is not the right way to deal with it. Geometry guy 01:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"he was rightly critized for it"...no...he was topic banned for it. Perhaps none here are aware of this matter in full. The Devils Advocate (TDA) was topic banned on this subject for 30 days after more than a month of POV pushing...Tom harrison and others had patiently tried to work with TDA during this period but it became untenable...so Tom harrison participated in a report on TDA to AE (filed by Jorgette), where the result of the matter was a 30 day topic ban for TDA. A couple months go by, Tom harrison makes these edits (as mentioned above by TDA) over the span of a day, not months...TDA marches to AE and reports Harrison, and Harrison gets an indefinite ban. Insanity rules...the good editors get the boot and the problem editors get a slap on the wrist...this place becomes more backwards everyday...and I have to say that anyone thinking there has been a fair and equal application of penalty here is nuts.--MONGO 03:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Discretionary sanctions and AE tend to raise the level of response on the criticism-chastisement-sanction scale, as all editors are warned at the top of talk pages of affected articles: part of the point of discretionary sanctions is to encourage extra care and more collaborative editing, after all. However, since you seem to be acknowledging that criticism at least was appropriate, and that this is not simply a case of admins failing to appreciate the claimed neutrality of the above three edits, I see no disagreement between us here that is worth pursuing. I wish I could help resolve your ongoing dispute with TDA, but that is off-topic here, and I've no reason to suppose that my help would be at all welcome by either of you. Geometry guy 23:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I would also like to see the ban lifted. Tom is a respected Wikipedian who has been helping to keep those articles in order for a long time. If his sources on this occasion were not ideal, that's something to be discussed on the talk page, or if the material is very contentious, maybe a warning. To move straight to a topic ban did seem hasty. SlimVirgin 06:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• support lifting the topic ban... and as an aside... with no reference to any of the underlying edits in this case... our topic ban system is insane. It allows a small vocal minority to imposes "bans" within less than 12 hours when most editors don't even see the edits in question, or read the ANI pages. Emergency blocks are fine... but indefinite bans enacted with such little due process is ridiculous. I don't know much about this underlying case... but this seems like a good example to raise of how our "ban" process is out of control Shadowjams (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC).
• Support. This topic ban is disproportionate, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: While I personally didn't agree with the original topic ban, I think it was within the discretion afforded to WP:AE admins and was appropriately placed. Instead of questioning the appropriateness of the topic ban (which was legit), it's probably more constructive to address whether it should be lifted at present. I would strongly support Tom's return to this topic area, as I think his overall track record there is remarkable both for his constructive contributions and his patience. Taken as a whole, his work in the area has been a huge net positive. When I think about the dozens of second chances we give to editors whose impact is unremittingly negative, it seems like a no-brainer to let Tom back with time served. MastCell  17:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - it does not appear that the topic ban is currently preventing damage to the encyclopedia.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to note that I rather dislike the suggestions that Tom's prior contributions means those edits noted above should have been regarded with less severity. When an editor is as deeply familiar with the process and policies as Tom the community should honestly expect a higher standard of behavior. No individual or group should ever feel like they have a "protected" status that allows them to get away with violating the core principles of the project. That is also why I strenuously object to any effort to remove the ban as wrongful, because it will only increase that perception of there being protection for certain editors who will then abuse that protection. Removing it on the basis that 30 days is long enough (something I would agree with) and his contributions elsewhere have been constructive is reasonable and consistent with what was desired by the admins who supported the sanction. Anything else will only be an encouragement for editors interested in defaming minority views.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of giving long-term contributors "protected" status... more a matter of recognizing that they, too, are human. Tom has made about 43,000 edits over the past 8 years. Four of them were deemed problematic and led to his topic ban. It's great that you expect perfection, but most human beings are incapable of it. If 99.99% of his edits are fine and he screws up once every 8 years, then I think our standards are sufficiently high, if not frighteningly unrealistic. MastCell  22:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've previously commented on the AE page and will avoid further comment, except to support removal of the sanctions, and to note that much of the "defamation" noted in the comment above was, prior to 2003, self-inflicted by Truthers, and TDA that doesn't have a license to whitewash that particular bit of history simply because Tom overreached. Acroterion (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A content dispute is not relevant here, but the insinuation that I am interested in whitewashing anything is absurd. I think people should stop using this as the official "trash TDA thread" and stick to the question presented. Should a single one of you have an issue with my recent conduct in that topic area you are free to file a report. This constant barrage anywhere and everywhere is getting tiresome.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Snowball? I would like to propose on the Snowball principle that the topic ban be lifted. There is no need to comment on the various bickerings on the justification of the ban, suffice only to say that 30 days have elapsed and the project has not burned to the ground. Tom has quietly gone about his business and the purpose of the ban has outlived it's relevance. Will an admin close this on snowball and remove the topic ban from AE? A note that the removal of the topic ban does not condone the edits or condemn the admins may be appropriate. --DHeyward (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, I would find a close along those lines acceptable. So long as it is clear that the edits Tom made were not permitted I do not object to him returning to the topic area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Admins, please do note...The Devils Advocate had a 30 day topic ban in this subject matter himself...and has been blocked once edit warring in this subject and another time for violating his topic ban...and when he filed his AE report had then also violated 3RR in the same topic but managed to escape that block. Me thinks two blocks, a topic ban and a missed block=tendentious editing in the same topic and should = an indefinite topic ban...much more so than a few edits made in the course of one day over an 8 year history of blemish free editing and never once a block.--MONGO 22:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, for the sake of goodness :) Far better, methinks, to send a positive message to Tom about the widespread appreciation there is for the vast majority of his contributions than send negative messages about this month-old lapse, and the response to it by admins and others. To the many editors commenting here in such a positive spirit, thank you: it matters for the health of the community, which is vital for improving the encyclopedia, so lets keep doing it! Geometry guy 23:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. I think a good message that also says "Tom it's been thirty days of quiet reflection where you have not made any edits to 9/11 topics and graciously accepted this topic ban. Your vast majority of contributions lead us to believe you can be trusted to edit 9/11 topics if you so choose." I think that's a sentiment reflected in the the overwhelming majority of comments above. This isn't a referendum on what happened 30 days ago, it's a decision looking forward with an understanding of his past edits that Tom is indeed trustworthy enough to edit this topic (or any topic). That is the positive message that needs to be reinforced. --DHeyward (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yep, with you there 100%. Geometry guy 00:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I had a quick look at the AE where the topic ban was implemented and I can't understand a word of it. I guess those expert in matters regarding nutcases and 9/11 can recognize Tom's edits as somehow inappropriate, but the explanations escape me (I suspect that the principal enforcing admin, now retired, just misunderstood the diffs). At any rate, and with thanks to those admins who participate at AE, this topic ban is not required. Thanks to Tom and all others who defend the encyclopedia against nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection bit of a backlog

Did a few but have to attend to RL chores.....go for it someone. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 Backlog cleared. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 21:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

AIDS and related pages topic ban for BruceSwanson (talk · contribs)

Could someone who knows what they are doing log the topic ban in the appropriate place (if any?). Thanks, NW (Talk) 17:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BruceSwanson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has disclosed on his user page that he denies the link between HIV and AIDS (or some variant thereof, I expect some sort of goalpost-moving sophistry to be invoked). He was also involved in off-wiki AIDS denialist activities though those links are now dead and have been removed from his user page. Bruce's contributions to any and all AIDS and AIDS-related articles (including AIDS denialists) have long been problematic:

• From April, 2010, this promotion of Duesberg's scientifically illegitimate assertions regarding AIDS being caused by homosexuality and related edits
• From June, 2010, deleting the scientific community's consensus regarding the Perth Group's AIDS-denialism from Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos
• From July, 2010, these two attempts to demonstrate HIV does not fulfil Koch's postulates
• From August, 2010, note this MFD discussion regarding an inappropirate rewrite of Inventing the AIDS Virus/Duesberg hypothesis
• From December, 2010, this discussion on the AZT talk page and edits to the main page misuse primary sources to exaggerate the risks and play down the benefits of AZT in the treatment of AIDS.
• From February, 2011, adding Inventing the AIDS Virus as a source and softening the wording (again on AIDS denialism)
• From February, 2012, tagging AIDS denialism
• Again from February, 2012, deleting the scientific consensus from Inventing the AIDS Virus
• From March, 2012, pointy suggestion that Inventing the AIDS Virus be deleted
• Again from March, 2012, inappropriate use of the {{NPOV}} tag and replacing it despite a lack of consensus on the talk page

Though it should be unnecessary to say, it is the unambiguous scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS; what was once a point of debate in the 80s is now a nigh-universally accepted scientific theory that only a handful of denialists still push. Bruce has consistently pushed the idea that AIDS is harmless, that Peter Duesberg is correct, and generally inappropriately used Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to promote AIDS denialism in both blatant and more subtle ways (above are the most explicit and obviously problematic edits, but there are more - see here, here, here). There is no indication that this behaviour is likely to change despite numerous editors pointing out the problems with his edits. Accordingly, I suggest a topic ban on all edits related to AIDS and AIDS denialism, including Peter Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus and the biographies of all AIDS denialists. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, and suggest extending topic ban to all biomedical articles given the disruption at the hep C article. At the very least a "broadly construed" clause should be included. Skinwalker (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• (Involved editor) If a topic ban is considered, then it should probably extend to all medical articles. While BruceSwanson's primary editorial fixation is on undermining the connection between HIV and AIDS, he's also been active at hepatitis C virus (where, unsurprisingly, he insinuates that HCV either doesn't exist or doesn't cause hepatitis). There is probably a limit to how long editors of a serious reference work should have to put up with this sort of silliness, although I understand that editorial patience is generally presumed, in the Misplaced Pages model, to be infinite and infinitely renewable.

  Personally, in a moment of (weakness|optimism) I once tried to reason Bruce out of some of his more idiosyncratic viewpoints (, not for the faint of heart). The results of that effort have led me to give up on interacting with him as a productive use of my time, and I think WP:SHUN is probably the way to go here. But given the difficulty in applying that approach, a topic ban may be more reasonable and practical. MastCell  17:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as an involved editor. As an update, BruceSwanson's continued off-wiki attempts to recruit denialists to tag Misplaced Pages articles can be found here. He has edit warred on the Inventing the AIDS Virus talk page (4 reverts in last 24 hours). I think a quick perusal of the edit history of the talk page will be enlightening. I, unfortunately, responded to one of his comments, but recognizing he would likely use my response to go off on one of his tirades about AIDS denialism, I one minute later decided to delete my post instead to avoid giving him that opportunity. BruceSwanson then reverted my deletion against my wishes, and despite multiple objections made, has continued to revert my deletion of my comment and replaced my comments and then struck them out struck out. If his feelings about this topic brings out this type of behavior, he needs to find another subject where he isn't a disruption. Yobol (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• AIDS denialism is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, right? If so, and if no one has done it before me by I get back later this evening, I will formally issue and log the ban. With that out of the way,Hasn't been formally notified of discretionary sanctions as required, apparently. I will fix that now, but think that the topic ban discussion should go forward. I too think that we should also take a look at the whether we should impose a broader topic ban and/or a block. NW (Talk) 17:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see where DS were authorized for AIDS/HIV-related edits.Never mind, just read your notification. That said, it looks like a good place to apply them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - anyone promulgating these false--dangerously false, as they contribute to infection rates--'theories' should be topicbanned at a minimum. Frankly he should be banned entirely. → ROUX ₪ 18:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban from all medical-related topics. It is clear that this user is not here to contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages, but rather to merely to promote his personal point of view. While I feel that may not be sufficient reason for a topic ban on its own, the complete inability to work collaboratively with others is unacceptable and makes the ban necessary. Deli nk (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban on medical articles and any AIDS-tangential political topic, broadly construed. In June 2010, a "QuestioningAIDS" forum user named BruceSwanson advocated disruption to Misplaced Pages regarding AIDS topics. The guy is dangerous and activist. This cannot be tolerated. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Per Roux, I'd suggest that a permanent ban would be appropriate. Misplaced Pages cannot be used as a forum for the promotion of dangerous fringe theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support, based on the ongoing IDHT response that I'm seeing below. A topic ban (on medicine, or at least infectious diseases, and on AIDS- and HIV-related topics, widely construed) seems the only reasonable response the community has left. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The recent edits at Inventing the AIDS Virus follow the same pattern as those at other "controversial" articles, where there really is no controversy among scholars. Dealing with this kind of thing wears people down. I wish there were a better solution than topic-banning, but don't see any other options. Tom Harrison 21:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The guy is dangerous and activist. This cannot be tolerated. I love it.

Remember, whatever you do in making this decision, be sure to:

1) Let past offenses accumulate. There is no statute of limitations. All offenses are permanent.

That's it. You're done! BruceSwanson (talk)

You miss the point Bruce - the issue is that you are still doing it. We all make mistakes, most of us have edit warred and we all have done the wrong thing at some point in our editing history. The issue is you stop when you are warned, corrected or dissenting information is brought to your attention. The problem is the pattern of active AIDS denialism on both article and talk pages for two years despite many, many editors citing reliable sources, policies and guidelines indicating it is inappropriate. Page ban discussions don't start based on what happend two years ago - they start based on the errors of two years ago being repeated now. If you'd stopped editing AIDS-related pages, we wouldn't be here. If you had edited to give due weight to the idea that HIV causes AIDS and kills people - but mentioned briefly that AIDS denialism existed and was completely wrong - we wouldn't be here. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly: he is still doing it. Hasn't stopped for two years. We need to act. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that what Richard Horton says in the Inventing the AIDS Virus article -- simply that HIV causes AIDS and kills people, thus bolstering the lead paragraph's claim to unambiguous scientific consensus? Or does he say that Duesberg is correct in predicting that HIV doesn't explain all facets of immunodeficiency? Is it promoting AIDS denialism to point out the discrepancy?

I mean, there is a discrepancy, isn't there? Right in the article itself.

Oh, and what about Yobol's insistence on his right to delete his Talk page comments, as if, once posted, they remain his and his alone to control? BruceSwanson (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If you mean that Yobol removes comments other people has left on Yobol's own talk page, there's no problem; people are allowed to remove anything from their talk pages (except for things needed for processes, such as declined unblock templates and speedy deletion templates) if they feel like it. Nyttend (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm talking about a comment he posted on the Inventing the AIDS Virus talk page. Then he deleted it. I saw it and restored it and then asked a question about it. He deleted it. I re-restored it. I posted my reasoning for doing so right on the Talk page. Yobol continued to delete his own comment -- which is exactly why we are here right now. BruceSwanson (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't resist posting an example of WLU's reasoning, above: Page ban discussions don't start based on what happend two years ago - they start based on the errors of two years ago being repeated now.

Ah. The distinction is . . . clear, like.BruceSwanson (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that we are here because of your attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a forum to promote a dangerous fringe theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that Richard Horton is or was an AIDs denialist? BruceSwanson (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that you are attempting to use Misplaced Pages as a forum to promote a dangerous fringe theory. HIV causes AIDS. AIDS kills people. I'm not interested in arguing semantics with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

So apparently you side with the crowd that will consider "errors" committed two years ago in deciding the issue today. All offenses are permanent. Otherwise, there is no justification for your claim that I am using Misplaced Pages as a forum to promote a dangerous fringe theory, any more than you could accuse Richard Horton of the same thing.

Or is that just semantics? BruceSwanson (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

See this edit . You are still attempting to use Misplaced Pages as a forum to promote a dangerous fringe theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You're ignoring this. Try reading it and then tell me what you think. BruceSwanson (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd already seen it. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that HIV causes AIDS and AIDS kills people. Your edit was made in an effort to suggest otherwise. That is self evident. That you chose to defend this by arguing over semantics on article talk pages is no indication to the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I quite agree that The overwhelming scientific consensus is that HIV causes AIDS and AIDS kills people. I have no problem with that statement at all. Really, I don't. The consensus is indeed overwhelming. But is it unambiguous, as stated in the lead paragraph of the Inventing the AIDS Virus article? It isn't -- because of the Horton quote found in that article. So why not say that the consensus is overwhelming instead of unambiguous?

Or you could just delete the Horton quote. How would you feel about that? BruceSwanson (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support The subject is controversial only for a small, vocal minority. The ban should be broadly-construed across all medical subjects: this is a particularly pernicious form of POV pushing. Acroterion (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The subject is controversial only for a small, vocal minority . . . this is a particularly pernicious form of POV pushing.

I quite agree. BruceSwanson (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support the broad medical content topic ban - sorry Bruce, your conflicted and better off not contributing in this sector at all. - Youreallycan 23:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm conflicted? Could you be more specific, Doctor? BruceSwanson (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of all medical articles. The off-wiki effects of whether or not someone denies a relation between AIDS and HIV should not be a consideration here, nor should the fact or otherwise of there being a relation. That latter is an editing matter dependent on reliable sources. The user's demonstrated inability (after two years? seriously?) to collaborate with others in a constructive and collegial manner and, chiefly, his persistence in POV-pushing against consensus is sufficient grounds for a topic ban, broadly construed. ClaretAsh 00:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote above, Let past offenses accumulate. There is no statute of limitations. All offenses are permanent.

Next! BruceSwanson (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Trolling is doing your cause no good at all. If you have nothing constructive to say, I suggest you remain silent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• At this point, given the response to the section, I would support a complete site ban (nominator). I think nothing is lost but drama, and much spare time to be gained. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I too support a total across-the-board ban. Bruce's remarks above about Richard Horton actually do argue for a deletion of the Horton quote from the Inventing the AIDS Virus article and inserting it on Horton's own article page as a warning about Horton's own lack of clear thinking regarding HIV/AIDS. Also it is an old comment. Newer sources should take precedence. And yes, Bruce, we should definitely let some past offenses accumulate. There is no uniform statute of limitations for offenses that conflict with consensus (except if the consensus has changed).

Also, I agree that Yobol has a right to delete his own comments on the Inventing the AIDS Virus talk page, and keep them deleted at his own discretion. Again, his position reflects true scientific consensus. No more semantics, please. Consensus alone counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Operative67 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from all medical topics, broadly construed. If the concerns about POV pushing didn't convince me of this, the editor's comments here have. From what I've seen, it appears that they either truly do not understand the reason this was brought up here, or they are feigning ignorance in some sort of misguided and ineffective attempt to muddy the issue. It doesn't matter if it is WP:CIR or WP:IDHT, there is an issue here, and it needs to be solved. - SudoGhost 01:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from all medical topics, broadly construed. I have seen the issues in the past, and the attitude displayed here confirm that a broad topic ban is required as volunteers cannot be expected to combat fringe theory promotions forever. Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• (Involved editor) Support indefinite topic ban from all medical topics, broadly construed, with immediate site ban should this be violated. I've also tried to reason with Bruce, back in June 2010 , but soon realised I was wasting my time. Seriously, the total amount of productive editors' time that dealing with this person has consumed is a tragedy. I'm glad to see unanimous support for WLU's proposal, and I hope the next fringe POV-pusher can be topic-banned far more swiftly, leaving the rest of us to actually improve the encyclopedia. Adrian J. Hunter 13:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support full site ban or, failing that, a topic-ban from all medical topics, broadly construed across all namespaces. If I wasn't convinced at the top of this thread that Bruce has no intention of contributing to Misplaced Pages constructively, I'm definitely convinced after reading the foot-shooting that he's done in this thread. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, with liberty to review in future for a full site ban. Pushing dangerous ideas & no evidence he is here to work collaboratively. GiantSnowman 17:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron

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

'This is just a notification of an RFC. If you wish to participate, do so at theRFC itself. If you wish to comment on the process, do so at the RFC's talk page. If you want to make snide remarks about particpants from either side of this conflict, do it off-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Two weeks ago, I closed an AN discussion here at WP:AN related to the Article Resce Squad and User:The Devil's Advocate. The AN discussion indicated a desire to have an RfC related to the issue, which became the foundation for my closure---namely that one get started. I initially gave TDA a week to get it started, but he asked for an extension and I granted it. So here it is. Feel free to join in on the discussion.---Balloonman 17:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh god.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

lol, see this: "Not that you care to hear my opinion (or anyone else's, I think), but if you want to file an RfC that has a remote chance of not getting laughed out of court, you might make this an RfC/U on Northamerica. The rest is just a bunch of baloney. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)" -- DA never responded to it.--Milowent • 17:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Milowent, I know you are involved with ARS and are critical of TDA, but is this type of ad-hominem post really necessary?---Balloonman 18:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel like I'm responding to my mother here: no, no, no, but ..... errr ummm whatever i'm sorry--Milowent • 19:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, wait, hold on. I don't have nearly enough popcorn for this. → ROUX ₪ 18:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• I see - we need an entire RFC now, do we, to confirm what everyone already knows - general idea of ARS = good, behaviour of small number of ARS members = bad. It's not bloody rocket science. Or perhaps on Misplaced Pages, it is? Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  Round up the usual suspects. (Sorry, couldn't resist). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• One might question the fitness of an administrator who is under sanction. 204.167.92.26 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with Misplaced Pages...

closed - see topbox of this page for what it's for

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

...in 18 comic frames, courtesy of Randall Munroe: Hersfold 23:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It must be the problem, because it makes no sense to me whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.explainxkcd.com/. Resolute 00:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Problems; often discussed, sometimes patched, rarely solved. Tarc (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of page history requested

Can someone please restore the 276 deleted edits of Statesman? I have asked the deleting admin to do this, but he doesn't seem inclined to do so. Fram (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Suppose that you could have gone to WP:REFUND, but this works. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Forgotten that we have "refund" as well, first time that I needed this as far as I remember. Fram (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)