Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher

Murder of Meredith Kercher, again, uninvolved admins please
You may know that the above article has multiple problems, in that there is a concerted campaign beign waged to alter the article so that it suggests that one of those convicted of the murder, Amanda Knox, is innocent. One editor has been indeffed, others blocked, and one topic-banned for disruption pushing this POV in an excessive manner. Recently I protected the article after a week of editing which saw half of the 70 edits being reverts of each other. The idea, of course, was to provide discussion before making changes. The talk page however, is still a horrible mess, and continues to attract NPA and BATTLE violations. This section shows a ridiculous argument over changing "has" to "had", for example.

Within the last few months, at least 12 new accounts have been created and appeared on the talkpage. All are wholly or also wholly SPAs on this article, all share the same POV, and the majority have the same attitude of "if you don't agree with us, then you must be biased and POV yourself" - they don't understand the concept of neutrality. Myself and fellow admin User:MLauba - along with the occasional other admin - have tried to police the edit-warring and general talkpage disruption as best we can, but it is now becoming difficult under the weight of SPA "consensus" and attacks on other editors.


 * User:PhanuelB (created slightly earlier than the others, in April - first edit was ) has been blocked three times for increasing lengths for violations of NPA, BLP and BATTLE; he has been repeatedly asked to edit collegially and will not. Requests for him to provide examples of POV in the articles are inevitably met with huge screeds of "this is what the article should say".  His participation in the talkpage thread mentioned above is typical. Today, he has (a) finally suggested that a "consensus" of recent SPAs should be favoured  and has also accused myself and MLauba of bias/POV in the article, without any justification except that the protection is preventing himself and the other SPAs from editing it .  Obviously, we cannot sanction him ourselves for this particular PA itself, though on overall behaviour it would not be unreasonable - I would ask someone else to look at this please, and at least offer a stiff warning.
 * One of the recent SPAs, User:PietroLegno, has also joined in this behaviour;
 * There is quite a bit more, but I don't want to TLDR - we really do need someone uninvolved to have a look at this. The talkpage is a good place to start. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is quite a bit more, but I don't want to TLDR - we really do need someone uninvolved to have a look at this. The talkpage is a good place to start. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Has a checkuser report been filed? A parade of SPAs, and in particular a claim that consensus among the SPAs should dominate the page is causing a major sound of socks quacking in my ear.  If this "consensus" is all or in part supported by socks, then a CU could help and would potentially clear out some or all of the SPAs, depending on how many are socks of one person. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Main user (User:PhanuelB) notified. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Some socking is possible but meat-puppetry is obvious even to the blind.TMCk (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some SPAs come from advocacy sites and most can be found expressing their POV view by a simple Google search. That wouldn't be a problem if they would stick to our policies of NPOV which the majority of those accounts don't adhere to.TMCk (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading the statements below I might should add that I'm also an involved party at MoMK.TMCk (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A number of the editors in question have off-wiki forums in common (although, I should stress, there is no bang-to-rights evidence of collusion between them with regard to WP), so think this is more likely to be an off-wiki thing than an SP thing. But I don't think anyone would query instigating an SPI, even if it does draw a blank. I'm an involved editor, BTW. Also, I think there may be one or two "pro-Knox" editors in the mix who have a POV but are not behaving unacceptably in terms of pushing it.--FormerIP (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been a bit involved in this (not too recently though), and agree with Black Kite on the issues that the article is facing. To be quite frank I don't have the time or inclination to keep up with everything that is going on but look in now and again to make sure that the article isn't being turned into a soapbox. Given that the last 500 talkpage edits only go back two weeks I am pretty impressed that Black Kite and Mlauba are still there trying to keep on top of it all. Quantpole (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite honestly, the two admins deserve a barnstar for their effort and endurance.TMCk (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, but it may be seen as apple-for-the-teacher. --FormerIP (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ( I won't place a barnstar to their account for the reasons you layed out (and neither should someone else doing so IMO). I merely was trying to make a point about their effort which might be unknown to those not following the case.TMCk (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC) )


 * Full credit to the two monitoring administrators who are doing their best to give the talk page at least a modicum of control and restraint. External links such as this (check out the comments panel) are troubling and provide evidence to support TMCk's observations. This particular username crops up all over the internet — for example, compare the YouTube channel to a remark in this newspaper comments section (third contribution down) and spot the similarities in content. It is clear that an agenda is being pushed. Recently there has been an assertion of "pro-guilt administrators", a phrase that used to be spouted liberally by the aforementioned indefinitely-blocked user. I won't throw any more names around myself, but I find it difficult to discount suspicions of sockpuppeteering with much ease ... and the Kercher talk page is no stranger to sockpuppeteering campaigns. Since the topic is spiralling out of control, I endorse the suggestion that a checkuser investigation be arranged.  Super Mario  Man  17:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit: as others have stated, meatpuppetry is probably mixed up in all this as well, hence a clear-cut case for a sockpuppet investigation no longer appears to exist, and I have struck through that last sentence.  Super Mario  Man  19:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out in my comment further above (even so there might be some sockpuppetry going on as well) the main concern is meat puppetry which a SPI cannot resolve.TMCk (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * With a fair wind it might. I don't think the main protagonists are socks of each other, but there have also been quite a few new editors popping up to voice their agreement and then disappearing. --FormerIP (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at the precise content dispute, but i get the picture. When stuff like this happens, the whole crowd-source model fails miserably (leaving aside to what extent it "succeeds" in other situations when there are strong points of view but the "rules" are obeyed). What should happen before the few admins that really bother go crazy is that a group of five or so editors that don't particularly care who is right and wrong here be given some power to sort out sources, reflect the fact that she was convicted, reasonably reflect some of the supporters' skepticism and why (in summary, representing weight and principally understanding that it should not require thousands of words -- the encyclopedia article is meant neither to be a book on why Knox is clearly innocent or obviously guilty.) Once the "expert group" gets it sorted put that bit off limits unless or until new "evidence" or meaningful info (say, an interview with a prosecutor saying he now regrets the conviction or something) comes to light. I recognize this will never happen -- but it would yield a better article with less strife, and less stress for admins dealing with it, who i commend for their patience.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It might not be a bad idea but, in principle, wouldn't it be a bit like an enforced content decision and therefore un-WP? --FormerIP (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it would be "Un-WP" as "WP" is currently construed. I don't understand why the experience of years can't be used to tweak what WP "is" to deal with these periodic bumbertrucks. At any rate, it's a meta debate and will leave it be in this thread.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Back to the point: What is needed are uninvolved admins who will enforce policy when those two admins are being attacked and cannot act on their own since they're an involved party in such case.TMCk (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. With regard to the other issues, the large amount of overlap on many of the SPAs contributions indicate that an SPI would not be productive. This is clearly an off-wiki campaign and can only be dealt with behaviourally, although at least two of the SPAs contributions are similar to previously blocked editors.  Those editor's contributions, however, would be stale in any checkuser.  But the major issue here is to get more admins involved, please. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a read-over of the talk page presents clear enough evidence for keeping the page protected. The SPA's who want it unprotected give the usual edit-warrior evasive arguments about "wikipedia standards" and such. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Very good (outside) observation, Bugs.TMCk (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Baseball Bugs, Bali. Maybe it would be better to wait until you have heard both sides of the story. I'm a little busy at work now.PhanuelB (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC) — PhanuelB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You can place your view anytime at your convinience. There is no rush and no deadline to be met.TMCk (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not appropriate to use wikipedia to try to make a case for somebody. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that the moderation of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article may be heavy handed and actively discouraging new editors. Rather than starting with the gently worded, low key reminders of Wikipedia rules typically given for fist offenses, the first warnings are often harsh. The message is not "Welcome to Wikipedia", it's "Go away". Specifically puzzling is the immediate block of user Gregmm who made only one edit that was constructive, properly referenced and well formatted. The text from that edit remains in the article to this day. This user was also blocked from editing his own talk page, an action reserved for cases where there is continued abuse of the talk page. --Footwarrior (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason given for the block was "block evasion" and at no point where they blocked from editing their own talkpage. I do not know which blocked editor was meant as violating their block but they could've placed an unblock request at any time. Also the only edit from that editor remained in place because of the page protection and no edit request to remove or alter it was made in the short time since then.TMCk (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (More in response to Footwarrior). Further, I'm not sure but you seem to show no worries whatsoever about all those SPAs popping up and presenting the same POV very strongly. There was only one of those new accounts (PietroLegno) in who I had some confidence till their post today: "...and our two pro-guilt administrators...", a familiar pattern.TMCk (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If the user was not blocked form editing their own talk page, why was the page template altered in this edit, removing the information on how to request unblocking. The users talk page also gives the reason for the block as "abuse of editing privileges".  Was there an investigation leading to a sockpuppet block? --Footwarrior (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That I don't know so you have to ask the blocking admin. The block log clearly shows no removal of talkpage privileges.TMCk (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was felt that any unblock request could be better handled through the unblock list. Are you going to answer TMCk's other points? Black Kite (t) (c) 20:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I second the latter and would appreciate that since Footwarrior is a longstanding experienced contributor who doesn't engage in those SPA's stereotyping. So whatever points he's raising should be responded to accordingly - and vise versa.TMCk (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I probably should've made it clear before that I do not include Footwarrior in the bevy of recent SPAs that have invaded the talk page. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any over-the-top biting of new editors here; a flood of editors who wade straight in to a controversial article throwing accusations of bias left and right do not need 'gently warning'. pablo 19:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * New editors are free to post any "new" information on the talk page. They don't want to do that, because they know it won't go in the article, being based on unreliable sources. Hence they are pushing for the page to be unprotected so they can edit-war again. Check the start dates and contrib lists of some of those cats, and you'll see they are recently-created, single-purpose accounts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When "new" editors suddenly appear on the page (and edit only that page) and start attacking other editors, accusing those that don't agree with them of bias, and demanding that their viewpoints be included in the articles, then as administrators we are obliged to explain the problems that they are causing. Footwarrior, if you can find an example where a genuine new editor was treated harshly without even a warning as to their behaviour, please feel free to point it out. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I'm not convinced that the sanctions administered to certain users are excessive or conflict with policies (Phanuel, for example, has been invited to contribute in a constructive manner on numerous occasions despite blocks, which does not suggest that the general attitude is one of rejection), the atmosphere at the talk page often descends into unsupported accusation and entrenched bitterness in a trend that has regrettably endured past the indefinite block and topic ban handed down in June. A whole host of these allegations have originated from users who perceive the current article's treatment of Amanda Knox as incorporating negative bias — however, I've seen little or no evidence of new, single-purpose usernames instigating calls for a harsher treatment. The essential area is a deep-rooted lack of civil conduct from certain participants which, due to repeated conscious or unconscious refusals to understand the point, leads to sensible, measured sanctions adopted being frequently construed as unjustified, conspiratorial "oppression" of such users and the so-called "truth" of the Kercher case. Extreme POV is bartered about in the guise of NPOV. This poisoning of the well appears difficult to cure at this stage, but it is just the one set of like-minded users behind it all.  Super Mario  Man  20:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * When you have a single edit warrior, it's usually better to block the editor. When you have a host of them, it's usually better to "block" the page. It's regrettable, but sometimes necessary, to prevent disruption. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I still don't have an answer on why editor Gregmm was blocked. Was a sock puppet investigation done before the block?  --Footwarrior (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support MLauba and BlackKite's actions in this matter. NPOV is more important than "that anyone can edit", and enforcing protection is an excellent way to force meat/sock puppets to engage on the talk page.  If they can't engage civilly on the talk page and make their points, then there's no good reason to either assume good faith or alter the article accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments A couple of things first, in terms of background. I first watchlisted the article in February following one of the so many regular ANI spillouts that have been happening throughout the history of this whole sorry mess. I took a very long time before taking any action - protecting the article with one sole intention, to avoid getting the one user who has been indeffed in the meantime from getting a (in retrospect well-deserved) block for edit warring in a "breaking news"-type headline on top of the article (in all fairness, to counter another fake breaking news inserted, maliciously, by an IP vandal). I did that because a medcab case had been opened by that same user, and until that time, I was still not entirely decided on whether the article was two opposing POV ducking it out, or a single POV trying to slant the article. What didn't help in April was that the article was a completely unsalvageable mess of opposing statements, a 'he said / she said' disaster where in the name of "neutrality" every single statement in favour of the prosecution had been countered with a wealth of counter-statements.
 * The two editors advocating innocence for Ms Knox at that time both represented a very aggressive brand of POV-pushing including endless aspersions of bad faith, intimidation, harassment, violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. One of these has since been indefinitely blocked, the other one is under a topic ban that he has kept testing and is about to expire - both of these enacted through ANI without any hand of mine.
 * In the climate inherited from these two editors, I do share some of the concerns voiced by User:Footwarrior above: that the view of the long-term editors of the page become tainted in a way that every single new poster advocating a POV in favour of Ms Knox is automatically greeted with extreme scepticism. We must, at all times, be able to distinguish between contributors who appear to be wanting to promote a more favourable POV for Knox in good faith (such as User:Footwarrior himself for instance) from the aggressive SPAs like User:PhanuelB who are completely unable and unwilling to compromise and have now limited themselves to snide comments, sniping, assertions of bad faith and overall just plain disruption despite countless invitations to contribute in a constructive manner. Rest assured that the burden of this toxic climate rests entirely on the shoulders of the extreme POV pushers.
 * I will also point out that contrary to User:Footwarrior's claims of heavy-handed administration, I have in the recent weeks refrained, multiple times, from imposing well-deserved blocks on part of the new-comers in favour of more mild reminders and invitations to rephrase attacks directed at other editors. Those have been, to this date, ignored.
 * I therefore stand fully behind every single administrative action taken on the page or on some of the users by User:Black Kite and myself and will welcome any additional administrative eyes on that article and all related pages.
 * Last but not least, as expressed in the previous ANI discussion, it is by now my firm conviction that User:PhanuelB has failed to demonstrate any further use for Wikipedia, having been, without fail, a net negative to the project from the first to the last of his contributions. I will reiterate that I believe Wikipedia will be better off with this user banned, or at the very least topic banned. MLauba (Talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lest I forget: regarding the accusations of bias, I challenge anyone to be able to present any personal opinion of mine in regards to the topic of the tragic murder of Ms Kercher or the three people who have been convicted in Italy in connection with that event.MLauba (Talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I would also challenge anyone to the same. Whilst I do not believe it would be incorrect for myself or MLauba to remove PhanuelB from the topic (a topic-ban would effectively be a block anyway), it would be better if a previously uninvolved admin did so.  The removal of PhanuelB would at least enable a far more collegial environment on the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * MLauba and Black Kite issue a challenge. All allegations of WP:BLP violations they have made against me are completely and categorically false.PhanuelB (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC) — PhanuelB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * .... and another one weighs in . Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of this. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PhanuelB should not be removed. He gives sound sourcing and has put in a great deal of effort to achieve a better article.  I don't find his behavior any less appropriate than those that are asking for his removal.  I read this desire to remove PhanuelB as a way to remove an obstical in maintaining a different point of view then what he has.  I don't think this is fair or desirable.Jaberryhill (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC) — Jaberryhill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I see my name has been taken in vain here and I would welcome the opportunity to respond at great length. Unfortunately it is impossible to know what is acceptable commentary on Wikipedia these days and what is not. Evidently what I see as spirited but not unfair commentary is unacceptable to some people. So let me make four brief points:

1) PhanuelB clearly should not be banned. He has done nothing to deserve that. His proposed edits have been impeccably sourced. He is very well informed about the details of the case. He has been very intelligent and flexible in relation to certain contentious issues. He is, in short, a breath of fresh air in an article that badly needs it. 2) For reliable commentary on what has gone on in the article, I suggest that you consult the comments of user Footwarrior. His (or her) commentary has been judicious throughout. This is a veteran user who understands why some of us newcomers feel badly used. 3)While I would have to know a good deal more about the particulars, I am inclined to think there is some merit in the kind of approach Bali suggests. More than anything I would like to see the article on the Sollecito-Knox-Kercher case reflect the fact that the defense put on a vigorous case and that well credentialed observers have made telling points against the verdict. Absent this, it is impossible for an uninvolved reader to understand why the case inspired so much controversy. 4) Please recognize that, the rhetoric of Black Kite and Mlauba to the contrary not withstanding, there really is another side to this story. I am quite sure that if I could sit down with many of you individually I could demonstrate that this is true. PietroLegno (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC) — PietroLegno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

NathanWard1234 (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)It sounds to me like Black Kite simply wants to silence someone he disagrees with. Black Kite wrote "The removal of PhanuelB would at least enable a far more collegial environment on the article" I think what Black Kite really meant to say was - I wish PhanuelB would go away because he really bothers me. This is getting pretty ridiculous. Many people disagree with the current content on this article. It is time to stop blocking those people and start listening. You have been provided with excellent sources for the suggested edits. You cannot keep the truth out of this article forever. In the spirit of Wikipedia, listen to reason, listen to the truth. No one has made any suggestion that they feel the article should be biased on way or the other. I have seen many people simply showing concern that the article is not accurate. There are many intelligent people here. Presenting an article that is as inaccurate as this one currently is, undermines the intelligence of all involved. It's time to stop with the back and forth bickering. It's time for both sides to set aside the defenses that are currently up and take an honest look at all suggestions. The truth is available. This article needs to present the truth. There is no other solution. Restricting someone's ability to participate is no way to resolve issues.


 * I too have seen many people "simply showing concern that the article is not accurate." I am one. We discuss changes on the talk page and attempt to improve the article with each change. Then there is another bunch of editors, yourself included, who show concern because the article does not say "Amanda Knox never done it not her boyfriend neither it was the other guy honest". There is a difference. pablo 23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "No one has made any suggestion that they feel the article should be biased on way or the other." I would like to assume good faith, but unfortunately a lot of "suggested edits" from users such as Phanuel boil down to poorly-concealed screeds of POV-pushing in an NPOV fancy dress outfit. For example, the notion that this proposal from last month replace a whole section of the article (and increase the page length by about one-third) is staggering, almost defies belief, and comes across as more of a wind-up than a proper "suggested edit". "You cannot be serious!"  Super Mario  Man  02:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "unfortunately a lot of "suggested edits" ...boil down to poorly-concealed screeds of POV-pushing" Equally unfortunate are the 'suggested edits' submitted to simply correct quoted sources to faithfully represent the language used by the WP:RS rather than the editors translation as to what he thinks the WP:RS meant to say. POV-pushing can refer to "suggested edits", or it can refer to long standing statements already included in the article. As to PhanuelB, I do NOT believe he should be blocked. He has argued his position passionately but he hasn't been vulgar or attacked anyone outright. The discussion has gotten somewhat heated at times but that's to be expected. We're not a bunch of little girls here to go off crying when we butt heads. I think we'll all survive. Tjholme 67.168.126.17 (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC) — Tjholme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The diff linked to above is just one of many disruptive edits made to the Meredith Kercher topic over a sustained period. Yes, we will survive, but it's a shame that, in the case of some users, our editing and behavioural guidelines haven't.  Super Mario  Man  03:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that this article is derived from sources that present the claims of the Italian authorities as fact. "Reliable sources" say Knox tracked blood around the crime scene on her bare feet. Forensic test results, however, show this claim to be false. I'm not sure how to fix that within the parameters of your rules, but I do have the data if anyone cares.


 * As for "sock puppets," what do you expect if anyone can sign up using any name? You might as well throw a Halloween party and complain about the costumes.Charlie wilkes (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That it is not required that a user contributes under their real-life name does not excuse that act of creating one or more additional accounts to cause trouble or influence consensus. One does not have to possess the Sixth Sense to recognise that, when it comes to the Murder of Meredith Kercher talk page, external forces are/have been at work to subvert the situation. When a whirlwind of new, red-linked, single-purpose accounts all of a sudden arrive on the scene armed with a range of solid convictions and unfounded accusations of corruption to be levelled against established users, thoughts turn to the possibility of an attack of the clones.  Super Mario  Man  16:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia suffering because it's the soft option?
I noted at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633 that there was documented appalling behaviour across the WWW that really has no place at Wikipedia. I wonder now, after some further research, whether our continuing problem is that Wikipedia, now, is the soft option. I notice that several of these self-same people with the same agendas and the same pseudonyms have had their contributions to various discussion fora, from the comments section of this article on The Economist (where a PhanuelB comment no longer appears) to Michelle Fabio's web log, variously blocked, restricted, or erased. We seem to be having this continuing trouble because Wikipedia hasn't proven to be as strict on shoving this campaigning and disruption out of the door as the rest of the world; hence the campaigners congregate at Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're very likely right; the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and ranks very highly in Rome Google must be v. tempting for any campaigner. pablo 23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is moving beyond the "take it or leave it" phase and more of the world is taking it seriously as a source of information. This comes along with mixed blessings.  Agenda-driven editing is going to become a major issue, and my impression is that Wikipedia's current governance structure is simply not equipped to handle this impending threat.     Thorncrag    23:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Uncle G: I agree that this is an issue, but perhaps it merits discussion somewhere other than here. I also think there may be a thing of editors with certain POVs finding in WP talkpages a place where they can give their opinions and will not be ignored or ridiculed, because of WP:NPA and WP:BRD. I think User:PhanuelB has no agenda here to improve the encyclopaedia, only to soapbox on one particular talkpage. I can provide an account with diffs to show this (won't TLDR for now), but can this be dealt with from here or would it require someone to launch an RFC? --FormerIP (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. Let's make us less of a soft option, then. I notice that across the web logs and suchlike there's a perennial "Oh pseudonym A and pseudonym B are just person C doing some astroturfing.". They don't have a mechanism for this. Wikipedia does. So let's start using it. Let's start with that sockpuppetry case that was suggested above. Let's clear out the single-purpose accounts that turn out to be sockpuppets. Sockpuppet investigations/SPCGuru perhaps? Uncle G (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that will give thin pickings in this case, actually (in spite of my above comments). We need a hard line on soapboxing and (IMO) a topic ban on PhanuelB, who adds nothing of value and prevents any constructive discussion between editors with different takes on the article in question. --FormerIP (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Prior to even reading the latest discussion here I had made a unilateral offer to PhanuelB here. If it becomes necessary I will bring the indef block I issue here for review. I hope he will have the sense to back down and stop soapboxing and then it won't be necessary. I would happily modify the disincentive offered to a topic ban if we felt that would be kinder; it seems to me like the user would experience one as badly as the other but YMMV. --John (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that PhanuelB replied to John's offer by repeating his view (without any evidence, of course) that myself and MLauba are biased administrators . The rest of his screed is a mixture of wikilawyering and outright falsehoods. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but let's break this down into stages. TexasAndroid above says that the existence of sockpuppetry is blatant.  Xe's not the first person around the WWW to suggest this.  So let's tackle that problem with the mechanisms that Wikipedia has for it.  Once we've eliminated any sockpuppetry, and reduced the participants to one account each, we can have a clearer idea of where things stand.  (Administrators will know why I picked  as one potential sockpuppetteer.) TexasAndroid, The Magnificent Clean-keeper, et al. are you able to compile a list of accounts that you suspect of being sockpuppets? Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a handy list of what I perceive as SPAs here. I do not think that there is necessarily sockpuppetry, but some sort of orchestrated campaign seems likely. pablo 12:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Socks aren't all made out of cotton. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My socking thoughts way above were based solely on the summary at the start of this report, not on any personal analysis of the situation. The summary read to me like a classic case of abusive sockery.  Others, who have actually looked into the situation, have countered me repeatedly in this thread that sock puppetry seems unlikely to them.  Very well.  But to specifically respond to Uncle G, no, I have no lists for use in a CU case.  I was merely suggesting a direction for handling the situation, a suggestion that in hindsight appears to not be all that useful.   - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * PhanuelB came up previously during an SPI case, but there was no indication of inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. I'm very confident that this still is the case. If anyone has any evidence or a well-founded suspicion feel free to open an SPI case or contact me, but continued speculation is not helpful. As MRG says, it's of course possible that there is off-wiki coordination, but with a widely contentious topic like this it's also quite possible that SPAs with a strong POV simply arrived at that article independently, as readers. Anyhow: If (if!) an editor is repeatedly found to violate NPOV and is unwilling to work as part of the community then WP:SOCK doesn't matter, and speculation about it is only distracting. Amalthea  14:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Amalthea here. Again, we have to be careful not to over-react to a small group of bad apples and go on wide-scale witch-hunts on the sole grounds that several users share a view. I believe that several of the more recent users can be brought on board. I do also suspect that there may be a concerted off-wiki effort that at least some may have joined, but that isn't problematic per se: the article is currently locked and this forces people wanting to change it to come to the negociation table, and behavioural issues can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Socks will eventually betray themselves (see the transformers issue below) and again dealt with when the need arises. I suggest we step back from this, but would also welcome if uninvolved editors would take a moment to coach some of the more aggressive newcomers on the acceptable standards of discourse on Wikipedia - my efforts in this area will necessarily be seen as more threatening due to past history. MLauba (Talk) 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with that Wikipedia is the soft option for agenda driven individuals. They get to mask their disruption behind Wikipedia's desire to always assume good faith. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is essentially a victim of its own success and growing visibility. At some point, the fundamental rules need to be changed to make it harder to screw up Wikipedia. But it doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * With a couple of exceptions, the editors on pablo's SPA list have been acting in good faith. Should we be assuming they are meatpuppets with bad intent simply because they dispute the prosecution version of this case?  --Footwarrior (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can assume that. It seems likely, given the clumping of some of their initial edits and the similarity of many of their posts that there may be a campaign going on, I don't know. I just made a list because I was surprised to see so many new accounts suddenly take an interest in this article. You can draw your own conclusions. pablo 20:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for affirming the point, namely that they are trying to push a personal agenda. That is not wikipedia's purpose. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or someone familiar with the case who read the article and discovered it included incorrect information and did not have a NPOV? --Footwarrior (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be reasonable if it were a couple of accounts. In the last few months, no less than thirteen new accounts, wholly or nearly wholly editing on this article, have appeared.  Even if they are not sockpuppets of each other, there is clearly an off-wiki campaign to slant the article in favour of the claim that Knox is innocent.  Now, Knox may well be innocent.  But the article can't include speculation to that effect, and it certainly can't be slanted in favour of claims that she may be.  We can only report facts.  The fact that the verdict is disputed is discussed already.  Perhaps it's worth a bit more space in the article, perhaps not.  But that's something that needs to be discussed sensibly.  The number of accounts poisoning the well with continual attacks on other editors is not acceptable.  I wonder why it is that the neutral, long-term editors on this article do not do this? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They were found guilty and some critics didn't agree with the verdict. That might be worth mentioning. But it is not wikipedia's purpose to be a vehicle to try to prove someone's innocence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a constant problem. Reporting the facts that Guede, Knox and Sollecito were found guilty of various crimes - and these are facts, not opinion - is seen as making the article "pro-guilt". pablo 20:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * resp. to Uncle G: As I pointed out before, although sockpuppetry is possible the main concern is obvious meatpuppetry which besides PhanuelB (who is now indef blocked) should be the main focus of this thread.TMCk (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "...some critics didn't agree with the verdict. That might be worth mentioning." If the controversy is to be mentioned at all then it needs to be supported with some background to explain why some critics didn’t agree with the verdict. To do otherwise is to imply that their critique is baseless, and that would be promoting a non-neutral POV. The issue of Knox's trial should be split off onto a separate article so it doesn’t overwhelm the Meredith Kercher page. She deserves to have her story told and to have it told accurately and completely up to and including the fact that AK, RS and RG were legitimately convicted of the crime. Given the international attention the controversy surrounding the investigation and subsequent trial has received I suggest that the issue deserves it's own page. This is not without precedent. Other famous trials have dedicated pages (eg Trial of OJ Simpson) and other convicted murderers have dedicated pages (eg Bundy, Gacey, Manson). I request that the issue of a "Trials of " page be reopened for discussion by the whole group and not simply dismissed without a clear statement as to reason. Tjholme (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC) — Tjholme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Well how about discussing your ideas about what you consider consists "accurately and completely" at the article talk page, rather than here? That's what it's for.  pablo 21:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB's Response
Seems to me that I should have the opportunity to respond to this before any of the neutral (hopefully) administrators new to the discussion make any conclusions. Another thing, you can only block somebody for things that happened after the last block. I don't really have the time to do this today as I've been doing too much of this at work. I have significant points to make and should have the opportunity to do so. Maybe somebody could make arrangements to keep this important discussion around a little longer than normal. PhanuelB (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC) — PhanuelB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Another thing, you can only block somebody for things that happened after the last block. according to who? :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 11:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason this SPA shouldn't be indeffed at this point? Strikes me as likely a net benefit to the "project." That's what i'd do as a first step.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef. Enough is enough. --John (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * endorsed, obviously. MLauba (Talk) 14:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Endorse the indef. After several month of disruption and no improvement to be seen I can't think of any other option.TMCk (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Endorse indefinite block. This user has been a troublesome burden to the topic right from the start, and like has indicated no desire whatsoever to adhere to the editing and conduct guidelines of Wikipedia. Perhaps I sound over-sceptical, but his above request for discussion to be deferred strikes me as little more than stalling for time in the hope that other users begin to view his conduct in a more sympathetic light (this previous ANI report that he opened last month started on a note of full conviction, but in the end came to nothing following the refutation of his assertions). There is only so much that assuming good faith can achieve when dealing with problem editors such as this one. I hope that this will be the last indefinite block that arises from this topic, and that no other user goes down a path similar to PhanuelB.  Super  Mario  Man  15:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 *  Do Not Endorse the indefinite block. PhanuelB should not be considered and interference for trying to gain a neutral pov.  He clearly has a postion, but if the article itself is not neutral then adding information to counter that bias is only a corrective measure.  The goal should be as neutral of a pov as possible in a controversial and disputed murder case.  If a point is in dispute either both sides should be presented or neither.  There is an atmosphere of intimidation going on in this article and blocking and banning seem to be the weapon of choice.  This intimidation and censoring of opinion should not be allowed.Jaberryhill (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC) — Jaberryhill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I read the article for the first time yesterday, and in my view, the article is already written in a neutral fashion. My brief interactions with PhaneulB made it quite apparent he was interested only in advocating the "Knox is innocent" position, and had no desire to maintain balance of the article or ensure it is written in a neutral point of view.  Resolute 20:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been made abundantly clear, on numerous occasions and at countless venues, that an indefinite block placed on PhanuelB will have been the result of his own actions and refusal to edit in a manner compliant with Wikipedia guidelines on civil behaviour. Yet again, a content dispute is being confused with a conduct dispute, and baseless accusations of non-existent corruption are being levelled at those users who do indicate at least some basic understanding of how we Wikipedians are expected to interact with one another. Jaberryhill, please read MLauba's above invitation for diffs, and substantiate your claims that a group of editors at the Kercher topic are being "intimidated" and their views "censored", or else your objection carries little weight.  Super Mario  Man  22:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My first post on the discussion page brought on a not very veiled threat to not go down that area of discussion unless I wanted to be banned. I personally felt my input was not welcome.  It is my personal experience on the page.Jaberryhill (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC) — Jaberryhill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Diff. (Help:Diff explains how to create them). TFOWR 23:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is entirely inappropriate for this article to contain any evidence or opinions regarding guilt or innocence found in any RS, including the Massei report, Micheli's report or any report, News article, etc, due to the possibility of this article impacting the upcoming legal process. This is not a court room. Many people are not aware that the articles in wikipedia are not regarded by wikipedia as a RS, and in my opinion they are not reliable due to the subjective nature of the process. The use of guidelines which are only recommendations with the word should constantly appearing can not in any way sufficiently control the process. Guidelines are not rules. Instructions are rules and the use of the words shall, should and may dictates managements decisions. For example: The Events surrounding the murder should only contain information regarding Meredith movements on Nov 1-2, 2007 and should not include anything that could imply guilt or innocence of anyone. This is not a court room. All evidence should be deleted or the entire article should be blocked from public view pending the completion of the legal process. This is not a court room.  Deletion of all evidence and RS options of guilt or innocence should resolve this issue.    Yoyohooyo (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC) — Yoyohooyo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * All the material in the article is in the public domain. The article does not imply guilt or innocence, it only reports the facts in the case, despite the attempts of a number of accounts to make it suggest otherwise. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how reporting the publicly-known and verifiable facts of a trial can affect any upcoming legal process. Pre-trial publicity is often an issue because of the risk of prejudicing the jury pool. But appeals are conducted by lawyers, and have to do with the trial process, not the facts of the trial, unless they have new evidence to suggest a new trial; and it is not wikipedia's place to be either aiding or hindering those efforts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways and game the system here, guys. "All the material in the article is public domain." So are the Steve Moore articles. You dismiss them. You dismiss anything that validates the concern that the STORY ITSELF is of a disputed trial, and you also block the request to have a separate page for Amanda Knox, or anyone else for that matter. You constantly take offense to anyone posing an opposing view of something that very cleary -- "IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN" is a story of dispute. You take the additional step of unilaterally banning those people who post an argument you don't agree with, even when they follow the rules (you claim they don't, which is extremely convenient). I propose that the dispute banner be posted to this page immediately, and the original redirect on Amanda Knox be removed immediately. JSL5871 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding the point made by Black Kite, JSL. He's pointing out that we are not prejudicing anyone's trial by repeating information that is already in the public domain elsewhere. For WP, though, it is not the case that anything in the public domain can be used as a source. We have a specific policy, WP:RS, which guides us on what we should and shouldn't consider. The essays written by Steve Moore do not confirm to this policy because they come from a personal website. That's not something we should start a discussion about in an ANI thread, though. --FormerIP (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Only repeating information from the public domain that represents one pov in definitely prujudicial to the reader's understanding.  Just because a documented source was used does not make this strategy correct.  This case is rife in old and false information that has been printed in papers.  It would be very easy to present an unsound article using what are considered reliable resources.  I agree with JSL5871 that the story is the controversy.  If the article fails to explain that there is controversy it is failing the reader.Jaberryhill (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC) — Jaberryhill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It does explain that some people doubt the fairness of the trial. Lots of times in fact. Get your facts straight. Quantpole (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "You take the additional step of unilaterally banning those people who post an argument you don't agree with". As I said above, if you can post one single piece of evidence that I have a view either way on the issue, then please post it.  I know you won't, though, because it doesn't exist.  No user has ever been banned from the article, or blocked, because of their viewpoint.  They have been blocked for disruption, name calling, personal attacks, soapboxing, sockpuppetry, and general refusal to comply with Wikipedia policy.  If you discuss the article collegially and rationally with other users, you will achieve far more for the article.  If you continue to act in the above manner, however, you will not. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) The above poster is typical of the problems the page is facing. Look at this draft in their userspace, and every contribution they have made on the talkpage. How many times do they need to be told that people are not banned for having an opposing viewpoints but for making personal attacks and having a battlefield mentality. Quantpole (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Battlefield mentality" is really the pot calling the kettle black, no? Let's be clear here, there have been TONS of threats of being banned -- I was threatened privately at least once, perhaps twice, for commenting on the censorship on this page (and this is the talk page, not the actual page) being similar to that in 1930s Germany. If you think that's insulting, than perhaps you should review the issue itself. But it is fact. Phanuel has been abused, as have others. I've monitored this page for quite a while and it is clear there is an agenda to "silence" the opposing view here. I bet someone will attempt to ban me here as well for my comments.

There is a solution to this, as I have suggested before yet somehow it keeps getting ignored, which again, fits into the agenda. The page should have a Dispute Banner on it. The very fact this specific conversation is occuring indicates that the page is, by definition, "under dispute." Also, if the editors with the lock on this page are concerned with the page itself, then they should release the lock, the "hijacking" (again, I used this term before and was threatened to be banned...truth hurts, doesn't it?) of the Amanda Knox page so it can be edited appropriately. Amanda is the focus of a controversial interrogation, investigation, trial, and conviction. That is a story that should be able to be told, and I do not think anyone here has the power to unilaterally decide otherwise. JSL5871 (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I stopped reading after your (repeated) Nazi comparison. That out of line comparison just shows your enormous POV in this issue and so don't wonder if you don't get taken serious by most editors.TMCk (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There's that "story that should be told" again, just like the wording of the other redlink farther down (what a coincidence). All too typical of SPA's - they can't get their way, so they invoke Godwin's law. This megillah started with an issue regarding a particule user. That user is now indef'd, so I think the entire section could be boxed up and the remaining discussion contained to the article talk page. Any non-SPA's disagree? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting aside self-interest (since it looks like the longer this thread is open, the more SPAs will receive blocks), I concur. --FormerIP (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Another SPA heard from:
 * What exactly is it that you're disputing? That she was convicted? Wikipedia's purpose is not to "tell the story that should be told", it's to report verifiable facts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have indefinitely blocked JSL5871 for his repeated over the top attacks, over which he had been warned multiple times previously. While standards of behaviour are a lot lower on ANI than elsewhere, there is a limit. MLauba (Talk) 00:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Back to remaining/unsolved point's

 * Back to the remaining point's: We have by Pablo's count 13 SPA's (single purpose accounts so there is no confusion) trying to dominate the article in part by majority consensus and their majority viewpoint (POV). As far I can see, neutral editors (and that incl. admins) have raises their concern about it and so the question is on how to proceed IMO. One solution would be if more admins (and editors of course) would commit them selfs to watch/edit and act on violations of plain soapboxing up to more serious ones (at their discretion) like John who already did both, commit and act.TMCk (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC) nb - 14 recent SPAs now - I had missed one earlier.  pablo 05:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO PhanuelB has made reasonable points in his appeal. I think the block should be lifted so we can all get back to doing some productive work instead of wasting our time here.. Yoyohooyo (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC) — Yoyohooyo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Forgive me if I sound a bit dense, but precisely what "reasonable points" would these be? How many times will certain editors on this topic need to be reminded that it is not people's views that are encountering a negative reception, but their attitude to other users? The response copied from Phanuel's talk page is a classic case of WP:NOTTHEM, and to my mind can hardly be dignified with a response.  Super Mario  Man  00:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB's Response (Final)
The present block only contains allegations of "trolling, disruption, or harassment" with a link to Disruptive Editing so I will address only those allegations which as far as I can tell can be almost anything. Issues of WP:TLDR are justified by the large number of false allegations that must be addressed.

Background of Content Dispute:


 * The article involves the Nov-07 murder of British exchange student, Meredith Kercher (MK), in Italy. As NOT stated in the article the events are notable because of questions over whether a female American exchange student convicted of the crime, Amanda Knox (AK), received a fair trial.   The trial has been the subject of intense international criticism, particularly in the United States, by those who believe AK and her co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito, did not receive a fair trial.  The conviction of a third person, Rudy Guede, is not in dispute. The essence of the content disagreement is that the article does not properly weight the POV of a substantial majority of reliable sources who have criticized the trial in unprecedented language. These WP:RS include legal commentators on CNN and Larry King Live, a retired FBI agent, a Seattle area Judge, and two CBS documentaries about the case one of which as been nominated for an Emmy Award. A group of mostly European editors steadfastly refuses to allow the inclusion of this material beyond a brief mention.  The failure to include such material raises issues of defamation and WP:BLP violations against AK in the article.

Allegation of "Refusal to get the point":


 * The allegation of "Refusal to get the point" violations is denied.
 * WP:DE states


 * "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error."

In point of fact many editors have expressed the same concerns I have. The threshold of "rejection of the community" is not met.
 * By NathanWard1234 : Are you stating that you will allow Steve Moore as a reliable source if his credentials are presented? If I present his credentials, I guarantee that you will fins another reason to disallow his opinion. It's not his credentials that bother you, It's his message. It does not seem appropriate for you to suggest that Steve Moore does not exist.
 * By JSL5871 : I totally support Phanuel. It seems a lot of the push-back here is one-sided, an oft-convenient way of keeping the article one-sided.
 * By Jaberryhill : PhanuelB should not be removed. He gives sound sourcing and has put in a great deal of effort to achieve a better article. I don't find his behavior any less appropriate than those that are asking for his removal. I read this desire to remove PhanuelB as a way to remove an obstical in maintaining a different point of view then what he has.
 * By PietroLegno : The adequacy and fairness of the trial and verdict have also been contested by a number of credible sources. Commentators of considerable standing have excoriated the verdict. The article, as it stands now, does not fairly reflect this controversy. It relies, for the most part, on a handful of published sources that have largely ignored the case of the defense.
 * By tjholme : After translation this important and significant statement became,"A bartender has also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife " IMO this is a clear and intentional attempt to downplay the information presented and to slant the tone of the article through omission...I must support PhanuelB in his argument that the Intro section needs rewritten to include a more prominent statement regarding the international controversy that exists surrounding the case.
 * By Perk10 I wasn't referring to the block only but the entire program of the admins. They are operating to promote a point of view and to protect the article from certain information. This is against Wikipedia rules. It is called "Gaming the System".
 * By Kermugin Perhaps Phanuel would have been less combative if he was shown a little respect. IMO, he was unfairly ridiculed. Were some people deliberately baiting and goading him into an attack? He wanted to talk about the controversy and the issues that have been raised questioning the fairness of the trial. But his well-researched and documented sources were immediately denounced as not reliable.
 * By --165.166.70.24 (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC) PhanuelB should not be blocked. He has an indepth knowledge, backed up by reliable sources. His arguments about the controversy surrounding the investigation, evidence and trial are valid and well-documented. — 165.166.70.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * By FootWarrior to Black Kite : This discussion started with a post where PhanuelB accurately pointed out that a statement in the article was false and provided evidence proving it was. Your objection was that he referred to Rudy Guede as a drug dealer and that this violated WP:BLP. You also deleted his comments from the talk page, instead of following the normal talk page process of asking for sources to back up the claim. PhanuelB responded with quotes from sources used elsewhere in this article that clearly meet the definition of WP:RS. If we have a RS backing up the claim, it doesn't violate the rules of WP:BLP. At this point, the threat you have made to block a fellow editor is not really justified under WP rules.

Allegations of WP:BLP, WP:SYN, WP:OR Violations:


 * Allegations of WP:BLP, WP:SYN, and WP:OR violations are denied in all respects. The essence of that dispute can be seen here and here.  Everything is sourced perfectly.  There is no synthesis or original research whatsoever. The exclusion of this material raises issues of WP:BLP against Amanda Knox. These two paragraphs are an extemely accurate representation of the substance of the allegations of BLP made against me on a daily basis.


 * Even one false allegation by an administrator is a serious matter.

Allegations of Trolling:


 * The allegation of trolling is denied absolutely and completely.
 * The WP:RS provided in Appendix1 below demonstrate that my contributions are "genuine dissent" -- at least.
 * The allegations of trolling are a violation of WP:AGF and show a double standard.
 * From WP:TROLL :
 * "Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling."

Allegations of WP:SOAP


 * Allegations of soapboxing are denied. For reference see the collapsed section here(doesn't link perfectly but the same content is here).
 * The section was a good faith effort to present what I think needs to be in the article. It consolidates content that might go in various places in the article, not all in one section. It is impecably sourced despite allegations to the contrary.
 * This is the essence of what they say is soapboxing. It is not.
 * The section on Maria Cantwell takes up less space than in the present article
 * The section on television criticism takes up less space than the similar content in the present article.

Allegations of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, threats, and intimidation


 * The allegations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA violations are denied.
 * The allegations of threats and intimidation are denied.
 * The essence of MLauba's numerous allegations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF regards my claim (also made by others here) that the editors apply a litmus test to proposed reliable sources. If they disagree with the POV, they find a way to say the source is not reliable. The rejection of Steve Moore here is utterly predictable.
 * A claim that editors reject a proposed reliable source because they disagree with the proposed source's POV is not a personal attack under What is a Personal Attack, particularly when supported as well as it is below.
 * Careful examination of the WP:RS below and the reponses by various editors and administrators illustrates the point. The sources I present are opinions of Reliable sources. Any encyclopedic article about a controversial trial will cite opinions of those who say the trial was fair or that it wasn't.
 * The essence of the allegation of threats was that I have spoken about an intent to seek arbitration or mediation. Seeking arbitration or mediation under Wikipedia's rules is not a threat or intimidation under the meaning of WP:THREAT.

Allegations of WP:GREATWRONGS Violations


 * I do hold the view that the Trial of Amanda Knox is a great wrong, one of many in the world.
 * I did not come to Wikipedia to right a great wrong because my first post on the subject under PhanuelB here complemented a previous (pre-major modification) version of the article.
 * The sole objective here is to see a Wikipedia article consistent with Wikipedia's policy of representing what reliable sources say about the subject. The POV of the article now is the exact opposite of what the reliable sources in the appendix below say.
 * Disputes on this page cannot be corrected as they are now by blocking and threatening to block those with a specific POV.

Allegations of WP:BATTLE and WP:CIVIL Violations


 * Allegations of past WP:BATTLE and WP:CIVIL violations are admitted in part and denied in part
 * A double standard has been applied to the conduct of those on one side of the dispute
 * WP:BATTLE violations are mitigated by questionable conduct by other editors.
 * By MLauba : threat/intimidation based on false allegation.
 * By MLauba : Intimidation of an editor who has made a fully justified comment.
 * By Black Kite : Threat/Intimidation based on false allegations of BLP violations. Challenged by others here.
 * By MLauba : Intimidation of an editor has made a legitimate post here.
 * By Black Kite : Threat based on false BLP violations. Double standard on WP:CIVIL.
 * By Black Kite : Intimidation based on a legitimate post.

Final Statement


 * I am fully committed to playing by Wikipedia's rules.
 * I have every right to challenge each and every false allegation made against me. There have been many here.
 * The objective is to have a NPOV article fully consistent with Wikipedia policy. We are VERY far from that now.
 * I have raised fair questions that others reject sources as not reliable because they disagree with the POV of the source. It does not violate WP:AGF or WP:NPA to state this obvious truth.
 * I have raised fair questions about misconduct (mostly false BLP allegations) by administrators on the MoMK page.
 * I have raised fair questions about a double standard on WP:CIVIL

PhanuelB (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC) — PhanuelB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Appendix 1 -- PhanuelB's Reliable Sources

The following are opinions which fall under Wikipedia's requirement to report "facts about opinions." They are presented here because they bear on my claim that reliable sources are being rejected based on the content of their POV, a central point of dispute in the argument against my block. Issues of WP:TLDR are reasonable in the following but must be balanced by the importance of the content.


 * (1) Paul Ciolino
 * Hired by CBS to investigate the case. Traveled to Italy and appeared prominently in two CBS 48 Hours documentaries. Credentials available . Central figure in the exoneration of Anthony Porter who had been on Illinois' death row


 * ''"This is a lynching. This is a lynching that’s happening in modern day Europe right now and it’s happening to an American girl who has no business being charged with anything.” -- CBS 48 Hrs, Apr-09


 * "They’re so desperate to make a case against this kid that they’ll do anything." -- CBS 48 Hrs, Apr-09


 * Response By Black Kite : Making a claim that the court was biased or predetermined would of course be a WP:BLP violation - if not libel - as it would allege (probably criminal) misconduct against those involved. In no way could that be included, especially based on non-neutral sources such as those above.


 * (2) Doug Preston
 * Author of the Moster of Florence. An authority on Italian police investigations. First hand experience with Giuliano Mignin when he was expelled from Italy. Chosen to comment on the case by CBS, NBC, and CNN.  Appeared prominently on the two CBS 48 Hours documentaries.


 * "This is a case based on lies, superstition, and crazy conspiracy theories... and that's it." -- CBS 48 Hrs, Apr-09


 * "he [Mignini] interrogate me. He accused me of committing horrendous crimes including being an accessory to murder…. I’m a professional journalist; I have a very good memory; I know what happened in that interrogation.” -- CBS 48 Hrs, Apr-09


 * “This is a very abusive prosecutor, he makes up theories, he's obsessed with satanic sects.”-- CNN AC360 with Anderson Cooper 5-Dec-09


 * Response by Black Kite : Of course the documentary is going to show the most sensationalist quotes it can; it wouldn't be doing its job otherwise. But to give an example using Preston's quote "this is a case based on lies, superstition, and crazy conspiracy theories" - well, nice quote. Any reliable sources showing evidence that he may be correct? No, thought not. (Double standard on WP:CIVIL)


 * (3) Tim Egan
 * Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for the New York Times


 * "The case against Knox has so many holes in it, and is so tied to the career of a powerful Italian prosecutor who is under indictment for professional misconduct, that any fair-minded jury would have thrown it out months ago." NY Times 10-Jun-09


 * "Preposterous, made-up sexual motives were ascribed to her...What century is this? Didn’t Joan of Arc, the Inquisition and our own American Salem witch trials teach civilized nations a thing or two about contrived sexual hysteria with a devil twist?" NY Times 2-Dec-09


 * (4) Judy Bachrach


 * Rome based journalist and Profesor of journalism at John Cabot University in Rome. Former Vanity Fair Editor. Author. Chosen by Larry King Live and CNN Headline News to provide commentary on the case.


 * "I have always felt that Amanda was going to go to a kangaroo court and unfortunately I've been proven correct." -- CNN Headline News with Wolf Blitzer 4-Dec-09


 * "the prosecutor is famously incompetent" -- Larry King Live 5-Dec-09


 * Response by Bluewave : I get quite irate at the arrogance of people who don't appear to have troubled to examine the case in any depth but consider themselves better able to comment on the verdict than the judges, who spent almost a year of their lives studying thousands of pages of evidence, over a hundred witnesses, etc). For instance Judy Bachrach has also claimed that the Italian justice system is based on the "the inquisition" and that, in Italy, you are "guilty until proven innocent"


 * (5) John Q. Kelly


 * Legal commentator for Larry King Live in this case and others. Involved in OJ civil trial. Represents family of Natalie Holloway. Chosen by Larry Larry King Live to provided legal commentary on the case.


 * "It's probably the most egregious, international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen. This is actually a public lynching based on rank speculation, and vindictiveness." Larry King Live 9-Oct-09


 * Response by Black Kite : This is an encyclopedia. We report facts, not opinions derived by our editors from other sources - that's a violation of WP:SYNTH, which is policy, and will be removed wherever it is seen. As for the quotes above; they don't belong in the article because they're from POV sources (Ciolino, Kelly).


 * (6) Peter Van Sant


 * Long time CBS News Correspondent. Traveled to Perugia to report on the case with 48 Hours. Many journalistic awards including 4 Emmys.


 * "Bill[O'Reilly] I'm telling you with all of my journalistic integrity this woman is totally innocent." -- Fox News Bill O'Reilly Live 12-Dec-09
 * "She's an innocent woman and I would stake my reputation as a journalist on that and I have been in this business for a quarter century."CBS news 10-Dec-09 talking about the 48 Hours segement to be broadcast that evening.


 * Response by Bluewave : We are not citing these documentaries as reliable sources and are not endorsing the views expressed in them. We're really just saying that a list of documentaries has been made about the subject of this article.


 * Response by Jonathan : The CBS documentary you are referring to is a self-publish source; self-funded, self-produced, not subject to peer-review and therefore, a biased source. CBS is not presenting the source, CBS itself IS the source. that's why it is essentially a blogosphere opinion.


 * (7) Senator Maria Cantwell


 * US Senator for the State of Washington.


 * ''"The prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Knox was guilty." 6-Dec-09


 * Response by Jonathancjudd : Senator Cantwell and Judge Heavey are in the Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch of the US Government, respectively. Neither has any authority whatsoever to comment; nor any jurisdiction over a murder in a sovereign nation; nor do either represent the "US Government" position, they are essentially statements that are as non-binding as a campaign promises...I do not see a reason for any of the above making it into the article. This is almost entirely sourced from Blogs and should not be considered a WP:RS.


 * (8) Judge Michael Heavey


 * Long time Superior Court Judge from the Seattle area. Appeared on the TLC Documentary ''The Trials of Amanda Knox."  Daughter knew Amanda Knox.


 * "The prosecutor’s office, police and prison employees have made illegal and false statements to the press. These false reports have wrongfully poisoned the well of public opinion against Amanda. A Perugian judge, Claudia Matteini, was caught up in this false speculation and has repeated and added to the false speculation in her opinions." 12-Aug-08 as referenced in TLC Documentary.
 * "For those of us who believe in Amanda's innocence if she's found guilty which can happen with a deominzed defendant that'll be a terrible injustice."


 * Response by TMCk : The Trials of Amanda Knox is a puff piece with little to no quality information and hardly qualifies as a documentary.


 * (9) Steve Moore


 * Recently retired FBI agent with a distinguished 25 year career. Is not a member of the formal Friends of Amanda organization. Has appeared on ABC Good Morning America, CBS Morning Show, and NBC Today show providing commentary on the case.
 * Credentials have been verified by major news organizations.


 * "Two good kids who were in college were framed for a murder that they did not commit and will spend the rest of their young lives in prison. Amanda will never have kids. This is obscene what they are doing to them." -- Gayle King Radio Show 9-Sep-10


 * Response by Jonathan : I do not see the work or credentials of "Steve Moore" anywhere other than on one of the pro-Knox advocacy website. I suspect that Steve Moore is a ghostwriter for the webmaster of this particular site. (Double standard on BLP violations.)
 * Response by FormerIP : Material by Steve Moore and Doug Preston may not be useable on policy grounds (I think this has been raised in previous discussions).
 * Response by Black Kite : It doesn't really matter what he claims to be an expert on, someone who posits rumour, claims or opinions as facts is clearly not a reliable source on anything.


 * (10) Anna Momigliano


 * Milan based Italian-American journalist who writes for Foreign Policy Magazine


 * "U.S. cable shows declared the verdict a sham, shredding the evidence and the court's conduct. And now, the Knox case is turning into an international trial on the reliability of Italy's justice system." Foreign Policy Magazine 10-Dec-09


 * Response by Black Kite : Attempting to insert your own synthesis about Guede into the article, and when an editor pointed out that you could not do that, and that only the verdict of the court should be stated, you replied "reliable sources state the findings of the court are a sham".


 * (11) Bernard Sheperd


 * President of Birmingham (England) Legal Society


 * "The flimsy evidence on which she was charged would have been insufficient to have ever reached a British court." Birmingham Post, 24-Dec-09

PhanuelB (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC) — PhanuelB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— copied from User talk:PhanuelB.  Super Mario  Man  22:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * What is curious about this response is the total absence of diffs to back up the multiple "denials" in sections such as "Allegations of trolling". Instead, pretty much everyone else appears to be at fault in some manner.  Super Mario  Man  00:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support PhanuelB in all. Oppose proposed block. Far too many blocks flying around lately in response to people that arent doing any of the big 3, ie vandalizing, threatening or attacking. PhanuelB may rub a number of admins the wrong way but that's no reason to go straight to the strongest sanctions available. Consensus does not mean eliminating the voice of dissent until only an echo chamber remains. With all due respect, please remove all blocks and allow both PhanuelB and Wikid77 to rejoin the various discussions. Tjholme (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC) — Tjholme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Tjholme, I think if you read PhanuelB's block log and talk page you'll realise that no-one has "gone straight to the strongest sanctions". Black Kite (t) (c) 06:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an "unblock request" which is basically a long rant which
 * says "I am right and everyone else is wrong"
 * accuses other editors and admins of "questionable behaviour", double standards, threats and intimidation whilst "proving" this by repeatedly taking their postings out of context (or providing no evidence at all)
 * doesn't address the actual reasons for your block
 * and most important doesn't seem to understand the reasons for your block
 * and thus is probably not the best way of achieving your aims. See WP:NOTTHEM. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely support Phanuel's petition for reinstatement. He should never have been banned in the first places. I strongly suspect that he is being attacked more for his view than for his actions. To repeat what I have said earlier, Phanuel's intellectual gifts make him a clear asset to the development of this article. He quite clearly knows more about the actual subject matter than anyone else posting. His style is vigorous and he is not afraid to make it clear when he believes others are wrong. But he has never resorted to vulgarity or personal attacks.In the real world there would be nothing at all objectionable about what he has done. It would be viewed as the kind of vigorous discussion that makes democracy work. Some of his detractors are much too thin skinned. The attacks that continue against him here amount to an extended rant by the same handful of people over and over and over as if mere repetition magically makes a thing so.. Phanuel is not saying "I am right and everyone else is wrong." He is saying that the rhetoric of a few is not supported by fact. Of course he doesn't understand the reasons for the block. Neither do I. They are not at all clear. The attacks on Phanuel amount to name calling and the bandying about of vague acronyms as if the invocation of a guideline is somehow proof that it has been violated. The real beauty of Wikipedia is the belief that articles improve through time through vigorous debate. Phanuel's ban is an insult to that principle.PietroLegno (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC) — PietroLegno (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (UTC).


 * Yet again, no: we are simply following proper Wikipedia procedures to act against a user who has been waging a campaign of sustained POV-pushing and other disruption. And as to who is repeating incessantly, I note that once more no diffs have been provided to back up the points in Phanuel's favour.  Super Mario  Man  12:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "He has never resulted to ... personal attacks". Strange that, because the section posted directly above this one accuses editors of double standards, lying and intimidation without any evidence whatsoever.  His long posting basically says "I haven't done anything wrong, and more to the point I've never done anything wrong, you're all biased and that's why I keep getting blocked".  It's been explained in excruciating detail to PhanuelB by multiple admins and other editors that he has violated various policies including WP:BLP, WP:SYN and WP:OR yet he just keeps saying "No I haven't".  Until PhanuelB gets the point of Wikipedia - i.e. this is a collborative editing community and not everyone is going to agree with you, and we have policies and guidelines for everyone to follow - I don't see much chance of an unblock. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
Since the editor's final (their wording) response consists out of nothing more than rants and quotes taken out of context I think it is save to say that this case can be closed. I personally expect him to pop up as a sock puppet (and he might even already have one or more working) but should be discovered soon once his main account or better said his confirmed legit sockpuppet account stays closed for good. They where given plenty of warnings and advises how to proceed by admins and editors, even by editors friendly to their cause so they can enjoy the editing of WP w/o fear of blocks or being banned. They chose the the opposite and after several month there is no improvement to see from the editor as could be expected as can be seen by their response here and their edit history. The only plausible conclusion is to keep them blocked indef and remove their talkpage editing privileges if they start misusing them.TMCk (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concluded ? Just like that.   Why is this the conclusion.  Several people have spoken up AGAINST the banning of PhanuelB and other posters.   There is to much banning going  on in this page.   He is greatly knowledgeable about this case and has sourced everything that he has done.   He is only fighting a fair if stong case for his opinion.   He has contributed a great deal to the improvement of this article.    I don't think he should be banned at all.   We need to bring in some neutral amins to review his response.   He has a right to have this looked at with new eyes.   I think this targetting of PhanuelB for banning is over the top.   This offends my sense of freedom of speech.    We need new admins to have time to review his response and take a concensus among all the editors before he is banned.   My opinion is a very firmly against the banning of this knowledgeable editor.   PhanuelB should not be banned and he has a right to his opinion and trying to make the article more neutral.Jaberryhill (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC) — Jaberryhill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * This page starts off saying:
 * You may know that the above article has multiple problems, in that there is a concerted campaign beign [sic] waged to alter the article so that it suggests that one of those convicted of the murder, Amanda Knox, is innocent.
 * I’d say that’s a poor start to an attempt to resolve a contentious issue. (What’s the “reliable source” for that??) It is not a fact but only someone’s opinion. Others seem to have the opinion that there is a concerted campaign to make the article suggest that Knox & Sollecito are guilty. Hopefully, we should agree that it SHOULD DO NEITHER. Black Kite said “…this is a collborative [sic] editing community and not everyone is going to agree with you…” Okay, but not everyone is going to agree with your disagreeing either. It works both ways. PhanuelB has made valid and reasonable comments and should be entitled to have his input considered. Most all of the allegations against him are based on interpretations of the rules that depend on your POV (opinions) and I believe are highly questionable. If he has gone into “BATTLE” mode, it was because he was pushed. Banning people you don’t agree with does not improve the article and only leads to more rancor. Please let’s remove the ban and try for reasonable debate. Kermugin (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC) — Kermugin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There has to be another way of going about this. Kermugin and others above have made good points.  This article and the Talk Page need speed bumps.  If you have a problem with something someone posts, the solution is not to ban the person from Wikipedia.  The solution is to work it out through debate - of differing positions, even.  And if there is a "violation", step back, rather than retaliate.  It comes off as extremely defensive, retaliatory, and like one guarding their turf.  That is not what Wikipedia is about, nor the role of administering.  My recommendation is that the situation should cool and energies be directed elsewhere.  This is issue has gotten too combative, which is not the time to make major decisions.  Perk10 (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC) — Perk10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'd rather see a ban on this contentious subject for ALL authors, editors, and admins - not the article topic or the Talk Page - but the subject of this noticeboard and other areas of discussion on it on the Talk Page. Perk10 (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC) — Perk10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What I mean by that is all talk of should this person stay or be banned? And: should that person be banned from the topic?  Banning should be a super, super rare event.  It is being overplayed.  This is a discussion, not situation of ultimatums.  Perk10 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10 — Perk10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 *  When will the point be got, dare I ask? PhanuelB is "trying to make the article more neutral"? PhanuelB "has made valid and reasonable comments"? "Combative" — like PhanuelB posting the same "reliable" sources time and time again at the talk page, in the hope that people have short memories and will accept them, despite their obvious deficiencies? Is this what is being asserted, dare I ask?  Super Mario  Man  00:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not the admins' job to decide if people are on track or not with everything they write. Engage via debate, don't monitor.  Obviously people are frustrated and need to step back from this.  Perk10 (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So there is a dispute about what is RS... let it be.  It's a complicated issue, across Wikipedia, not just with this article.  You don't have to decide what is RS or what is not - you can actually leave it as unresolved for a while (without even marking it as such formally) until someone adds something that helps the situation or it gets resolved inadvertantly in another way.  Perk10 (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC) — Perk10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * "It's not the admins' job to decide if people are on track or not with everything they write." Quite right, but as soon as editors are stepping over policy lines (BLP, SYNTH, or whatever), then yes, it is our "job" to point out that it's not allowed. And if editors respond with "actually, I don't really care about your policies, and I don't agree that I'm breaking them anyway, so I'm going to carry on doing this regardless of how many people tell me I'm wrong", then you're never going to get anywhere.  And Perk; this article is never going to stay off the admin board whilst editors on it keep doing that, either. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * One quote from the first responder to this thread and one answer to it should explain every other post:
 * "Concluded ? Just like that. Why is this the conclusion. Several people have spoken up AGAINST the banning of PhanuelB and other posters".
 * Answer: Several one sided biased SPA's opinion don't make an argument.TMCk (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, several new SPA accounts that share PehanuelB's views on the article have spoken up. That doesn't sound particularly AGF, but the fact that no established editors have done so should be somewhat telling.  The fact is that established editors would recognise a valid unblock request when they see it - and this isn't one; in fact it contravenes most of the guidelines in WP:NICETRY! Black Kite (t) (c) 06:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Objection" from PhanuelB
Excuse me but I have not been been given a fair hearing here.


 * The unblock request came back saying that no one has commented in your favor. That's not surprising, it was only four hours. Since this was removed from the Admin noticeboard no one is comming to comment. Any adminis who claim to be neutral should at least read my response and say where they think it is wrong.


 * I have every right to have neutral administrators look at this case AFTER HAVING LOOKED AT MY RESPONSE. That has never happened.
 * I claim that false allegations of BLP violations have been made. Despite numerous requests, no neutral administrator has ever looked at the substance of that claim. I have said bad things about Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini. All I'm doing is repeating what reliable sources say. Every bit of it is sourced dead nuts as defined above.
 * The fact is that if my claims of false allegations of BLP violations are supported, then everything changes here.
 * There is a claim that my response had no diffs. Actually it has over 30.

There is no fairness here. PhanuelB (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC) — copied from User talk:PhanuelB.  Super Mario  Man  01:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP
No BLP violation?


 * Statement of intent in PhanuelB's very first edit:
 * "The portrayal of Guede is negative and should be more so." diff


 * No due process is needed - various people have accused him of crimes for which he has not been arrested or tried but is clearly guilty because PhanuelB says so:
 * "The fact that he might not have a criminal conviction is irrelevant because the evidence of his criminal acts is so compelling" diff


 * and the kicker - presenting the following as fact despite there having been no trial, no conviction for these alleged crimes.
 * "Guede's history in the weeks prior to the crime: three break-ins; threatens somebody with a knife; armed with a knife as a weapon while committing a felony; breaks a window with a rock and climbs in a window to steal a laptop."" diff

seem to add up to a BLP violation to me, and an intention to continue with it. pablo 08:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I request that a neutral administrator view this This is the substance of everything I've ever said about Rudy Guede.  Nothing more than repeating what reliable sources say.  If neutral administrators determine it's not sourced, or WP:OR or WP:SYN then fair enough.  If there's no WP:BLP violation there then significant counterclaims I have made stand.PhanuelB (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In the months that you have been editing at Wikipedia, not one administrator (including those who have contributed to this discussion) has bought this argument. Is it your assertion that all these administrators (including those who have otherwise not contributed to the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic) are not neutral?  Super Mario  Man  14:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bigger picture, no Amanda Knox article
One bigger issue is an Amanda Knox article. Whether she should have an article is to be decided by what we want Wikipedia to be.

However, if we are inconsistent, that makes Wikipedia look biased. Based on the standards used for other articles, Amanda Knox should have an article. Even a minor killer, like Philip Markoff has an article.

If we say that most recent murders are news and not encyclopedia, I can understand. But to act in an arbitrary manner is bad.

I am too tired to fight so I leave it to others. It is too bad that only people with lots of time on their hands and a fighting spirit thrive in Wikipedia. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Markoff has been implicated in more than one original crime (unlike Knox) and has committed suicide in police custody (unlike Knox). On the other hand, given that the Murder of Meredith Kercher has resulted in multiple convictions, it is clear that it is that article which must remain the central "hub" of the topic. Since Knox and the other defendants at present remain difficult to distinguish from the murder, there is little to justify a dedicated subpage, which would have to stand upright as a full biography of Knox as opposed to a mere rehash of selected portions from the murder article.  Super Mario  Man  19:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Notes on the "Has Had" Controversey

 * Black Kite talks here about a a ridiculous argument over changing "has" to "had". In point of fact this sentence has been the subject of much controversey in the past as criticized here by another user.


 * The following text from the article is referenced:


 * "A bartender had also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife and the owner of a nursery school in Milan has claimed that Guede trespassed on her premises."


 * This very sentence is at the epicenter of what's wrong with the article and it has been extensively debated in the past. The claim that this was an argument over a trivial point such as using "has" or "had" is a misrepresentation. PhanuelB (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat that I would like independent, neutral admins to review my response. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.  There was a lot of activity before I was able to respond. As I review this admin noticeboard page, I have the same question as Tim Egan above, "what century is this?"


 * Copied from PhanuelB's talkpage. --FormerIP (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is no WP:BLP. This one sentence exemplifies exactly what PhanuelB has been up against and why frustration must have driven him to raise his voice a bit. The sentence regarding Guede is supported by citation [16] which is an article from Daily Mail 09 Dec 2009 relating the Christian Tramantano testimony. Apparently the article is considered WP:RS as it was used without objection to support the statement "...A bartender had also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife." The actual quote reads "... Tramantano went to Perugia's central police station to report the break-in, identify Guede as the culprit and to detail how the intruder was armed and threatened him.". The actual quote from the WP:RS was paraphrased by the editor using softened language which changes the entire weight and importance of what was reported (which bears an eerie resemblance to the Kercher scenario) When PhanuelB says "The portrayal of Guede is negative and should be more so" it's obvious he's not suggesting that Guede be demonized or slandered, just that the quoted source be quoted accurately, which it isn't in it's current form. Looking at the case against PhanuelB all I see are calls for accuracy being mischaracterized as WP:BLP infractions, honest observations that some editors might be (consciously or unconsciously) somewhat biased mischaracterized as personal attacks, calls for mediation by a neutral 3rd party admin mischaracterized as threats. I havent seen PhanuelB attack, curse or threaten anyone, nor slander any living person. WP gives the admins the ability to block editors as needed. That need should only arise when an editor is out of control and presenting some kind of danger to Wikipedia's integrity or it's members, not to silence an editor that simply swims against the bloody current. Respectfully, please remove the blocks and let Phanuel rejoin the conversation. Tjholme (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. This article is a badly written digest of media coverage, much of which is inaccurate and misleading. WP won't improve it by banning people who are pointing out the problems.Charlie wilkes (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As you were told before, Charlie, just point out the "inaccurate" parts of the article, with relevant sources to show that they're inaccurate, and everyone can discuss it. Nothing is going to happen if you just keep saying you don't like it.  And I think you know very well that Phanuel wasn't blocked for criticising the article.  Read his block log. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have clarified the situation with regard to when the Postal Police arrived, which is backed by a secondary source as well as the actual presentation delivered at the trial, which includes the output of a surveillance camera and a scanned image of the relevant cell phone records. I hope the clarification stands, but it met with stiff resistance by editors who, apparently, would like to preserve Matteini's preliminary ruling, as relayed by the Telegraph in November 2007, as the definitive information on this topic.
 * Another matter is the header announcing "The Knox family's public relations campaign." The word "campaign" reflects a basic misconception about David Marriott's role. He was not engaged as a strategist, and he has never acted in that capacity. He was hired to screen media requests by a family whose phones were ringing off the hook. The public should understand that Amanda's supporters are not being paid, and we got involved on our own initiative, not because we were recruited by a PR exec.
 * I recognize that I am tainted, but I do have a lot of detailed, factual information, which WP can use to gauge whether RS information is also accurate information. Even the best sources publish errors.Charlie wilkes (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To simplify I've added tags to your previous post so you have a chance to back up your thoughts with RS's before I respond. I might not be up to date but you can change that. Thanks, TMCk (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm summarizing what I know from personal contact with Amanda's family. I am not proposing that the text you annotated be included in the article.Charlie wilkes (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But it is not clear when the Postal Police arrived, Matteini is not definite and there's no evidence that the defence's claim about the inaccurate clock was ever proven. And this discussion is taking place on the article talk page, would you like to move your comment there?  pablo 23:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am responding to Black Kite's invitation to point out inaccuracies. I don't care where the discussion takes place. Matteini was definite, per the Telegraph's translation of her report: "In fact, from our investigation it emerged that the Postal Police arrived at 12.35 while the call to 112 came at 12.51 and 12.54, circumstances that suggest a conduct that they wished it to be thought they had been surprised outside the building where the homicide was carried out." Finally, I have given you the evidence supporting the defense claim about the inaccurate clock. It involves time stamped images showing the arrival of the Carabinieri seven minutes before they made a five-minute call to ask for directions because they could not find the address.Charlie wilkes (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe anyone ever claimed it was a BLP.  I've no idea where you've got that from. My comment was that it was a ridiculously long and drawn out argument over changing the tense of one word, and that it was typical of editing at this article. And Tjholme, Phanuel is blocked because he has attacked other editors and repeatedly had problems with BLP.  If he wants to be unblocked, all he has to do is issue an unblock request explaining that he understands the reasons for it and will not repeat the behaviour. It's not as if it's the first time he's been blocked for it, after all; the community only has limited patience. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Charlie: In my view, the problem here really is disruptive editors, and I'd like you to consider that these editors don't do anyone any favours. It's natural to support people you agree with, but editors who favour edit-warring, tactical games, versions of events that are clearly not supported by anything and so on are not only a nuisance to me, they are also not an asset to you, I would suggest. On the specific issue of the Knox family hiring PR help, you may have valid points. My impression is that the family have hired PR people who have worked to create media stories favouring Amanda. But I may be wrong. Or I may be right but there is reason to clarify the extent to which the Knox family ought to be held accountable. I can't be sure, because there is not a relaxed, civilised atmosphere in which to discuss things like that in an honest and open fashion. There is just a point-of-view battle. People who agree with you are on the wrong side of that battle not because of their views but because of how they carry themselves. I would suggest that you would be better off not defending them, because your POV would get better respect if you didn't have to suffer guilt-by-association. --FormerIP (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should maintain a cordial tone, and I will try to do that. But, at the same time, I understand the frustration of those who share my opinion that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. The problem is not Wikipedia, but the media sources from which this article is derived. The media has been assiduous in reporting the prosecution's side of the story, but not the defense side of the story. The arrival time of the Postal Police is an example. The defense nailed this cold during the trial, but it wasn't picked up by the media, except for the Giovinazzo publication, which. "hyper-local" though it may be, was given access to defense materials that either were not available to reporters for larger publications, or were ignored by those reporters. I don't know which, but it seems likely that the hyper-local publication used its hyper-local contacts to get some good information. Meanwhile, I have the cell phone records, and I have all the output of that security camera from November 2, 2007. That clock was slow.
 * As for Marriott's role, the best source I can come up with is the Daily Mail from Sept. 3, which wrote the following in an article about Steve Moore:
 * "David Marriott, the Knox family spokesman, said: ‘I’ve never met the man and neither has the family. He’s doing all this on his own.’"
 * People are getting involved in this effort on their own initiative, not because of Marriott. But I can't blame WP for getting this wrong. The source is the BBC, which wrote:
 * "Amanda's family hired a heavy-hitting Seattle public relations firm to turn around the "super tanker of disinformation" connected to the 22-year-old A-grade student."
 * That sounds newsy and authoritative, but it's not accurate.
 * One aspect of this problem is that the media always gets its juiciest and most marketable crime news from the authorities. Back in the mid 1990s, "reliable sources" were reporting that people in Wenatchee, WA, were swapping their kids around at sex parties. That was what the authorities were telling reporters. It was a good story. But it wasn't true.
 * And the problem is of course in the first sentence - " I understand the frustration of those who share my opinion that Knox and Sollecito are innocent". This is an encyclopedia and therefore has to deal in facts, not opinions.  We can of course mention that the verdict is controversial, and the article does do that.  But after that, it has to be reliably sourced facts only.  There are plenty of locations on the Internet for people to argue Knox and Sollecito's innocence, but this isn't one of them. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)