Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive1

I moved a recent, distracting meta discussion here from Talk:Barack Obama
$\sim$ Justmeherenow    13:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been recruited by WorkerBee74 via e-mail to work on this proposed project of reducing the U.S. Senate section and enlarging the Illinois Senate section. I had previously given up on this article as a basket case, and its editors as incorrigible pugilists. Recent events on this page suggest to me that there may be a single, tiny ray of hope for this article after all.
 * I'll give it a try

My time is valuable. I would prefer, if my investment of time here will inevitably be wasted, to spend it instead editing articles on gay rights. I have never encountered even the slightest problems of any sort in that pursuit, and it has been most rewarding.

There is a machine here, whose operation has been described as "disagree/ provoke/ report." It has already harvested numerous blocks, and a topic ban for a productive editor who is now productive elsewhere. At present the machine has been switched off. If I see anyone putting the key in the ignition again, or putting fuel in its fuel tank or air in its tires, I'll be the first to report it at WP:ANI. As long as we have an understanding that the machine will remain in its current idle state, I will go to work on this project. Curious bystander (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems the height of hypocrisy to call other editors "incorrigible pugilists" in the very same post where you make accusations and threats yourself. Editing this article seems to cause you stress, and you seem to have found others you enjoy, so my recommendation is to stick to those. No point in stressing yourself out. --Clubjuggle T/ C 00:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Putting on moderator's hat Note that since any oversight proposals that were in violation of WP:bureaucracy appear to be going down in flames, I myself am stepping in here, not a quasi-officer of Wikilaw but only a Wikicitizen. Here goes.
 * Ironically, CB's attitude provoked CJ's snarky response ("ironically," since CB characterizes adversaries as running "contend, ratchet up antogonism, seek sanctions" machine, yet does little in this post to ratchet down such antogonism hi/rself). Still, while CB's wording is adversarial in places (not enough to warrant sanction but something that he'd be warned to avoid so as not to elicit snarky reponses on the page), it doesn't cross the line into a territory deserving of sanction. Yet.
 * Now for CJ: whereas CB's statement at least addresses content, CJ's statement only addresses another editor's tone. However it does so by asking this fellow editor to not work on the article. This is out of order, and the comment should be recast to address CB's poor tone constructively, since, as CJ's statement stands, were it to be reviewed at an an/i, its lack of anything constructive about the article's content or concerning adherence to Wikipedia procedures could conceivably be determined to be disruptive. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (to Justmeherenow): I appreciate your desire to help out, but I don't think we should discuss on this page whether someone's conduct is right or wrong, sanctionable or not. Under the proposed article probation neither CB's taunts, nor anybody's responses to them, would be appropriate.  The discussion of other people's behavior would simply be deleted, closed, or redacted and editors asked to take their issues to some other page if they cared to pursue it.  We don't have the other page or forum, which makes this awkward.  There is good cause to ask CB to stop making edits like that on this page, and no other place but here to say so.  CJ could have turned the other cheek, but I hardly see CJ as being the cause of the disruption here.  Further, a moderator would have said what CJ said, perhaps more delicacy, but stronger and with more force.  We don't have a moderator so who can say it?  I don't see anything good coming out of this discussion - why don't we just close it and if CB wants to announce his intent to perform future article edits he can try again without disparaging other editors.  Wikidemo (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think closing the discussion in the manner you suggest, WD, would be good.
 * (As far as your characterization of CJ's response as similar to a moderator's): That depends. If CB had been warned by the moderator already not to "taunt" and then CB had yet again come across uber adversarially, then, yes, the moderator could imply threats of sanction, even with sarcasm if that's the moderator's style. But let's see -- without such prior warning -- and, say, with the moderator's first ever hearing of CB or CB's brief, for the moderator, as a neutral party, to immediately go to sarcasm in order to warn CB not to dwell so much on past slights, seems less likely. But you're right, it would indeed be possible -- and so I stand corrected. :^)   $\sim$ Justmeherenow     01:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Addressing behavior is always acceptable on the talkpage, when done in the right spirit -- as it helps establish boundaries for acceptable behavior: which is a contructive thing! $\sim$ Justmeherenow     02:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, yes, talk pages can be used to bring up editors' behavior. Under some proposals for article probation for the Obama pages (which I'm trying to follow here but feel necessary to make an exception given the topic at hand), no.  On these pages we have incivility, game-playing, accusations of lying and other things, POV-pushing, and tendentiousness, from sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and SPAs as well as legitimate accounts.  In turn, some here repeatedly claim that my attempts to keep order amount to lying, whining, a conflict of interest, bias, content warring, gameplaying to get them kicked off Wikipedia, etc.  Every administrator who has come here has faced some of these accusations themselves.  Who knows if that's an act or if they actually believe that in their heart of hearts?  There is no right spirit to discuss that here.  You can't say it's okay to complain about other users' behavior without opening the floodgates of accusations back up.  One key step in keeping things civil has got to be removing those discussions to somewhere else, so we can use this page for direct discussion on improvements to the article rather than comments about other editors' faults.Wikidemo (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (addressed to CB) Please do not use this talk page as an forum to meatpuppet other editors' WP:BATTLE or disparage other editors. Stop making threats and promoting WorkerBee74's "disagree / provoke / report" taunts.  Enough, already.  Wikidemo (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) - We don't want to expand anything. This article is written in summary style, and the Illinois Senate section is already long enough. Also, the "machine" that you speak of is operated by the SPA who recruited you, and it's already running well past the redline. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Denial is not a river in Egypt. Curious bystander (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Page protection at The Obama Nation

 * Closing (as incident reporter) - no action taken; report is now stale - Wikidemo (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As of 04:23, 19 August 2008 fully protected The Obama Nation after an edit war involving 18 delete / reverts in about 54 hours, to all of a section now entitled The Obama Nation. Edit war history is as follows:


 * 1) 2008-08-16 20:46 (diff) WorkerBee74 ( /* Reception and criticisms */ Reducing criticism to about 50% of the article - still far, far more than has been allowed in en:Barack Obama or any other Featured Article)
 * 2) 2008-08-16 21:27 (diff) (minor) Loonymonkey (Reverted to revision 232363598 by Ohaohashingo; reverting unilateral removal of sourced material. The notability of this subject is its controversy.. using TW)
 * 3) 2008-08-16 23:55 (diff) WorkerBee74 ( /* Reception and criticisms */ CENSEI & Umbertoumm support this edit; GoodDamon agrees that MMA is not a en:WP:RS. Let's talk.)
 * 4) 2008-08-17 00:37 (diff) Wikilost (Undid revision 232399600 by WorkerBee74 (talk))
 * 5) 2008-08-17 18:47 (diff) WorkerBee74 ( /* Reception and critical review */ Talk page clearly shows no consensus for Wikilost's revert. Accordingly, I'm restoring version closer to NPOV)
 * 6) 2008-08-17 18:53 (diff) (minor) Wikilost (Reverted 1 edit by WorkerBee74; Actually, YOU were supposed to ger consensus BEFORE you made the edit in the first place.. (TW))
 * 7) 2008-08-17 19:51 (diff) Curious bystander (Undid revision 232534045 by Wikilost (talk) You do not have consensus for this revert, Wikilost. Please review en:WP:3RR)
 * 8) 2008-08-17 20:05 (diff) (minor) Clubjuggle (Reverted 2 edits by Curious bystander. (TW))
 * 9) 2008-08-17 20:09 (diff) Curious bystander (Undid revision 232545217 by Clubjuggle (talk))
 * 10) 2008-08-17 20:58 (diff) Loonymonkey (Undid revision 232545938 by Curious bystander Try addressing these one at a time. Wholesale changes will meet resistance.)
 * 11) 2008-08-18 14:53 (diff) WorkerBee74 ( /* Reception and critical review */ )
 * 12) 2008-08-18 14:56 (diff) Goethean (revert vandalism)
 * 13) 2008-08-18 22:49 (diff) Curious bystander (Why does this garbage keep getting shoveled back into the article? "Reception and critical review" section is sufficient.)
 * 14) 2008-08-18 23:01 (diff) Gamaliel (rv - see talk. Readers will expect a discussion of specific allegations sourced from reliable sources and there is no reason we should not provide it.)
 * 15) 2008-08-19 01:02 (diff) WorkerBee74 (Wikilost, author of this section, has admitted this is a en:WP:OR violation on Talk page. Also, Gamaliel, how do you know what "readers will expect"? I expect NPOV)
 * 16) 2008-08-19 01:16 (diff) Noroton (added back Truth of allegations section, reverting WorkerBee74 on that. Matter seems to be still under discussion)
 * 17) 2008-08-19 01:45 (diff) Arjuna808 ( /* Truth of Allegations */ this is utter garbage. how is any of the information here "true"?)
 * 18) 2008-08-19 02:12 (diff) CENSEI (no concensus)

Without passing judgment on the merits of each the count of reverts is WorkerBee74 - 5 / Curious Bystander - 3 / Wikilost - 2 / Loonymonkey - 2 / Goethean - 1 / Noroton - 1 / Clubjuggle - 1 / Gamaliel - 1 / Arjuna808 - 1 / CENSEI - 1.

The article was added to the probation list by user:Wikilost 21:06, 14 August 2008 and probation status has not been challenged.

All editors except Goethean, Noroton, and Galamliel are on formal notice of article probation as of 2008-08-17 (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation#Notifications); most are on constructive notice before that from having edited the talk page or acknowledged awareness of article probation.

- Wikidemo (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's completely inaccurate to say that any edit warring involved only that one section. In fact many of those reverts were of attempts to unilaterally rewrite the entire article (of which that section happened to be one part).  It is unclear why you've limited your notice to that one section only, but if you had put on notice changes to other sections, you would have had to include yourself on that list with a revert count of two.  You made these two delete/reverts in those few days:  and .  --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying everyone involved was at fault but clearly there was a breakdown and some people didn't heed the article probation terms. I wasn't editing anywhere near an edit war.  Wikidemo (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * True, you weren't editing anywhere near an edit war, but then neither were any of the editors you listed above that also had two (or even just one) revert in that three day period. I think this is one of those "glass houses" situations. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who's throwing stones? I wasn't blaming anyone.Wikidemo (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So what was your intention in listing all those editors who had one or two reverts (but not yourself) as participants in an edit war? Playing coy and saying "I wasn't blaming anyone" doesn't change the fact that you implicated several editors in this "war" who were doing the same or less than you were.  I welcome the intervention of any non-involved administrators in this situation, but don't really see the need for involved editors to point fingers at other involved editors. This whole "notice" smacks of WP:POINT.--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's totally straight. I simply traced the chain of 18 reverts that lead to the article protection.  I'm not involved.  If I had been part of it I would have listed myself. Wikidemo (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no. You selectively pulled 18 edits out of a much larger pool of edits and reverts (including two delet/reverts of your own). The administrator that protected the page said nothing about it involving only that one section. Limiting this incident report only to the section that you didn't edit was a decision that you made, not of any uninvolved parties.  Much as you want to play the part of non-involved editor you are  involved as the edit history of that page clearly indicates. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's a chain of reverts - and it's laid out above.  There was no selection process on my part other than to simply ascertain that each one after the first was a reversion of the one before, and absolutely no blame coming from me.  I did not edit war and stayed away from the revert warring.  All you're saying is that I edited the article - I made two supportable, simple edits, which is how one is supposed to edit.  I don't understand what stake you have in trying to portray me as anything but sincere.  Blaming the messenger doesn't do any good here and is counterproductive because it undermines efforts to actually do something about this.  Wikidemo (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemo, with full recognition of your good faith and honest efforts, and with acknowlegement that I made a screwup yesterday, I do think you sometimes have a tendency to post messages on editor's talk pages and this page when no violations were made. This runs the risk of having a chilling effect on legitimate and honest edits, although clearly a bit of chill may be required now and again to prevent an edit war. I agree that the current protection is a good thing to get everyone to take a step back, and your efforts to referee are not without merit. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As an editor who was largely involved in the creation/expansion of the section that is currently called Disputed accuracy, I see several issues with the page on both sides of the debate:
 * There is too much use of Media Matters for America as a source for citations. Until it is firmly established that Wikipedia regards MM as a reliable source for statements of fact -- as opposed to using MM as a source for information about itself -- I don't think it has a place in most references. The accuracy of MM is inconsequential, here. As WP:V makes clear, the standard is verifiability, not truth. As it happens, many of the MM factual disputes have appeared in reliable sources such as newspapers of high repute, so there's no need to use MM as a source.
 * The book's controversial content and disputed claims are its notable elements. Without the controversy, it hardly qualifies for a stub. The book certainly can't be used as a source for information in Wikipedia on other topics, such as Barack Obama, as it doesn't pass muster with WP:RS, and using or even repeating its claims without some serious qualifiers opens Wikipedia up to accusations of libel, which is not allowed per WP:BLP.
 * To be blunt, this is going to be a necessarily negatively-toned article. The overwhelming weight of reliable, verifiable sources weigh in harshly on the subject, and only a few fringe sources are very positive about it. WP:NPOV must be taken into account -- our tone must be neutral, we must let the facts speak for themselves, and we must not opine. But we must also honor WP:UNDUE, giving more weight to the main view than the fringe view.
 * Conversely, the article must not become a laundry list of factual inaccuracies in the book. We must remember that it's possible to put undue weight on the majority view, as well. Getting every single niggling error or mistake into the article is unnecessary. There's no need to try to reproduce anyone's list (*cough* like the one from Media Matters *cough*) of problems with the book. Anyone interested in such an in-depth analysis is welcome to follow the external links to same. I'd rather not break this article to suit anyone's political opinions, and suggest EVERYONE read WP:SOAP before editing the article again.
 * Gosh, I'm long-winded. Hope this helps put things in perspective. -- Good Damon 15:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I had one revert, which it turns out was a complete mistake on my part based on misreading what seemed to be flagrantly POV (it wasn't, it was just poorly written). CENSEI then reverted mine, so his revert was completely justified and s/he should not be penalized for that. Realizing that I had made a major error, I issued a mea culpa and formal apology on the talk page (and on CENSEI's talk page). I then put my comments on the article talk page under erasure. The revert I made wouldn't even have happened had my brain been fully engaged, and I apologize to all the editors once again. I agree that an edit war must be prevented, and I submit that providing a warning may suffice for now. I have chastized myself already for what was no doubt a bone-headed rv on my part and it will not happen again. Arjuna (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Arjuna

 * closing - parties appear to have reconciled over this - Wikidemo (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User Arjuna808 has attacked my motives in violation of the spirit and the letter of of this probation. I request that community sanctions be imposed in accordance with the mandate of the probation. The edit is here.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, I fail to understand the nature of that to which D4D takes offense. Here is the sentence that he objects to: "I somehow suspect that D4D may have a motivation other than stating the literal definition of 'non-fiction'." What he somehow takes as a personal attack was not; I was suggesting that he was intending to (i.e. 'motivated by the intention to') convey the idea that Corsi's book is, as "non-fiction", somehow by extension also "true". With respect, this seems like both a misinterpretation of what I wrote, as well as an overreaction. I would respectfully point other editors to this exchange on D4D's talk page, noting in particular his reply, and which may be illustrative of something. Indeed, this action -- going to the lengths of posting an incident report about my comment -- seems to me a disruptive and singularly unproductive mode of editing, but I leave it to the other editors to judge. Arjuna (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that when the readers read the last comment there of my "offending" behavior, it will show that I was vindicated in some measure. I'm not sure what the red herring of a discussion about refactoring comments has to do with this complaint about your unrepentant behavior. It is an interesting side show. You are required to comment on edits, not editors nor the motives that you would ascribe to them. I expect that you will find that I am right, or you will be here more often than you might like. Et tu Brute is not a defense of your behavior , nor specious links to old talkpage discussions. Except for content discussion, or an apology on your part, or community indication that your comments were a violation of policy, I'll limit further direct discussion with you here and allow the community process to work.(Edit conflict) I would ,however remind you of WP:ATTACK, drawing your careful attention to the first paragraph of the policy ans well as your being a signatory to undrstanding the special Barack probation understanding.

Die4Dixie (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply, and I look forward to external comments. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment D4D, I've already mentioned on my talk page that I thought the comment was rude and uncalled for, but I don't think it rose to anywhere near the level you're taking it. Arjuna was artless, and seems to think you're editing from a strongly conservative position... but you are, aren't you? There's nothing wrong with that, as long as the edits themselves are neutral, and s/he failed to assume good faith of you and your capacity to edit neutrally, but that particular offense was, frankly, not worth the bother of an incident report. I recommend this be closed, with Arjuna asked to apologize, but I don't see any need for any kind of binding resolution. or sanction. -- Good Damon 13:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood the article probation status. I could be corrected. If the behavior does not reach the trigger point for outright condemnation, then I need to know so that I can adjust both my behavior, and my threshold for tolerating such behavior in the appropriate direction. I can skate a a pretty fine line too.Rather not, but I want to know the rules.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We're all adults, presumably. Even with articles on probation, it's preferable to sort these things out through communication instead of recrimination. If Arjuna's behavior had consisted of insults and disparaging remarks, that would certainly merit a topic ban, if not a community ban, as personal attacks are bannable offenses. But his/her behavior did not come close to that, and there was some confusion on the talk page on what you wanted definitive statements on (see here for my confused response). If you had engaged Arjuna and said something like, "It looked like you weren't assuming good faith with me in that edit, and I'd appreciate it if you'd strike your comment and apologize," I have no doubt Arjuna would have complied. I just don't see how his/her comment requires any kind of arbitration. -- Good Damon 18:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Goodness, I don't want him banned or topic blocked, only told resoundingly that we will not tolerate commenting on editor nor their motives. That it is indeed a violation of policy ,and the probation status of this article. He is laboring under the misconception that this behavior is acceptable, and I just don't want it repeated. Banned etc? Absolutely not.  Just told directly it is a no-no. Die4Dixie (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This whole thing seems to be a ridiculous overreaction and counter to the entire point of probation. We're supposed to be editing in a civil manner and keeping these sort of spats to a minimum, not running to file an incident report at any perceived slight, no matter how small.  And, as long as we're on the subject of Good Faith, it should be noted that Die4Dixie has been canvassing like-minded editors to support him on this incident report.  See .  --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looney monkey does not know the definition of canvassing:Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. And a comment to one editor has been morphed into "editors" (a direct quote from loony's post above). Which part of good faith is that? Mistaking singular for plural is one thing, but using the past present perfect progressive for a single comment for a single post is misleading. Perhaps everyone is not as careful with their tenses as they ought to be, or simply does not understand the difference between that and the more appropriate preterite. I'll assume good faith and assume the latter.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If this were on the administrator's noticeboard they would tell everyone to go home. So I think we should go home.  Dei4Dixie had a valid complaint but I think he realizes and we all agree that it didn't rise to the level where any action is needed, and I think/hope Arjuna808 understands that it's best to be more polite.  Everyone should feel free to use this page to bring up matters of legitimate concern, but do try to get along.  Fair enough?  Cheers,


 * I agree that this was completely unfounded and we all need to move on. Arjuna (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to have someone agreeing with you. So far you are the only one who has stated your behavior is acceptable. THat is the only problem. Many have said that it is not.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you two cut it out? Arjuna, you shouldn't question someone's motives without evidence beyond their partisan leanings. D4D, you shouldn't waste time and resources on such a tiny quibble. Both of you, don't make me turn this encyclopedia around. Because I will. -- Good Damon 02:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * GoodDamon, thanks for your message and helpful comments. I maintain that I have done nothing even remotely wrong, but I will endeavour to be mindful of your and others' remarks in future comments associated with Die4Dixie on BO-related articles. As far as I'm concerned, this is the last comment required from me on the subject. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with that. Mine too.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How to proceed?

 * closing - editor blocked 48 hours for disruption - Wikidemo (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this guy? Ignore and hope he goes away? File a full report? Delete / close any further insulting comments on the pages? He's clearly been warned and clearly violated the terms here, and if we can't enforce this we might as well give up. But on normal pages we see a lot of this kind of nonsense and it's usually easier to ignore than to pursue administrative remedies - this might be drive-by disruption. I'm inclined to go with the first option and see if he doesn't just go somewhere else. Wikidemo (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow up - he's getting somewhat abusive on his talk page but as long as it stays there, no real problem, right? He has basically thrown down the gauntlet and said if we won't stop him he won't stop.  Given his UK locale and scant ( history, I'm inclined to think he won't cause long-term disruption so the best approach is to ignore the taunts but remove, revert, or close any further disruption from him on the Obama pages.  If nobody says otherwise, I do plan to patrol the pages and remove any intolerable disruption coming from him.  It would be wonderful if someone else could back me up -- and tell me if my plan is all wet -- so I don't get accused of being part of a content dispute here.  Is there an admin or currently uninvolved editor available?  I'll be taking a few hours off from editing so I'll see if there's any progress before I get back.  Thanks  Wikidemo (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can be bothered, file it.He has crossed too many lines. Fat fool was the least. This should have administrative oversight. Deal with it now. If he sees that someone does have authority(non us) then he might modify his behavior. Or they will fix it for himDie4Dixie (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I tried to engage him on his talk page, and he responded aggressively to me as well. I've reported him at WP:ANI. We'll see what comes of it. -- Good Damon 03:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Be sure to notify him. If he tells me to fuck off too, then I'll comment there at ANI. If he apologizes, then you could drop it ( But don't hold your breath )--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't hold my breath, and now he's blocked for 48 hours. We'll see him again, I'm sure, but now we've got some breathing room. -- Good Damon 04:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey
Suggested topic ban for Scjessey for "repeated personal attacks and incivility."

Wikidemo proposal, 25 August 2008

 * Propose we wait until 00:00 UTC 27 August 2008 to see what happens, and if there is no significant new development, administrator participation, or withdrawal by the reporting party we close and archive this as being unlikely to lead to any action under article probation.

Discussion

 * (as proposer) I don't see any reasonable chance that the report itself will lead to any blocks, bans, or other decisions under or affecting article probation. The discussion is growing increasingly rancorous, with positions growing more antagonistic and far apart.  This raises the possibility that the report itself may become disruptive.  I would urge all the parties to recognize this, stop short, and recognize that further debate on this does not serve any behavioral, procedural, or content related purpose here.  Wikidemo (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon proposal, 25 August 2008

 * Propose we close. Regardless what happens on Wednesday, this incident report is not the place for it. This incident report is about Scjessey's behavior, and the likelihood of any sanctions being imposed from it is vanishingly small. -- Good Damon 20:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Noroton
Scjessey is well aware of the need for editors to avoid personal attacks and incivility on the talk page,

The Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation section states:


 * Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.

The same page also states at the How to avoid being subject to remedies section:


 * Interact civilly with other editors;
 * Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article;
 * Avoid repeatedly discussing other editors, discuss the article instead;

Yet he's done the following:


 * 1. Despite repeated requests to stop making personal attacks, he has continued.
 * 2. He cites policy -- including WP:BLP and alluding to policy when he mentions "disruptive" -- in order to shut down debate, and when he is shown policy is not on his side, he ignores the rebuttal and continues to do it.
 * 3. He repeatedly tells editors to stop discussing because their fact- and policy-based arguments, he alleges, are "disruptive"

Evidence (all italics and boldface in quotes are in the original; I include them to show the emotion-laden forcefulness of his language; note the continued drumbeat over days with him using nearly identical language):


 * 17:57, 22 August [Note: first iteration of the "disruptive" charge] -- "That's one view. Another view would be that you have been completely taken in by the Republican smear campaign and have done everything in your power, for months, to shoehorn policy-violating BS into the article on their behalf. This has become tiresome and disruptive, and it has to stop. Why don't you create a blog or something?" [his entire post]
 * 22:13, 22 August -- I respond: "What happened to "comment on the edits not the editor"? Why can't you respond to new facts that have come up?" [partial post]
 * 22:20, 22 August His response is another personal attack [Note: second iteration of the "disruptive" charge] -- "Fantasy. There is nothing new. There are no new facts. It is just the same fringe stuff regurgitated by different people in a different way. The throw-it-all-in-and-maybe-something-will-stick approach. The non-story is only "prominent" because it continues to reverberate among the clueless. Again, repeatedly bringing this up is disruptive." [his entire post]
 * 19:09, 23 August (set of diffs, all edits I made) -- I try to meet his objections with new information, which is what we're supposed to do.
 * 21:29, 23 August -- His response is to ignore the new information and to continue the personal attack and iterate again the "disruptive" charge -- "They are not reporting anything new, but simply noting that this particular smear campaign has floated back to the top of the Republican agenda. This "additional coverage" is only notable from a campaign perspective, and so might warrant a mention in the campaign article. Once again, I beg you to stop this disruptive, agenda-based discourse." [partial post]
 * 16:08, 24 August 2008 -- the same attack against me is alluded to, using the same wording: "Absolutely not. This is exactly what the Republicans have been trying to do all this time. By repeatedly stating the same thing over and over again, framing it in as many ways they can think of, they are hoping to shoehorn at non-notable association with Bill Ayers into this "life story" in order to make sure Ayers' alleged misdeeds are associated with Obama - a serious WP:BLP violation. The only notable aspect of this "relationship" is that it has become one of the Republicans' primary strategies in the election. It is not at all notable with respect to Obama's life. Let me restate this one more time: this is news about news about Obama - the "controversial" aspect is the strategy, not the association itself. This is not biographical material." [entire post]
 * 18:09, 24 August -- He repeats it yet again (Note: third iteration of the "disruptive" charge), although he denies one attack (calling Wikipedians "Republicans", which is not a big deal) in the beginning of this post, the closer you get to the end, the more you see he's repeating his charges against me without naming me and the harsher he gets: "I'm not talking about Wikipedians. I am talking about Republicans and the Republican strategy. Now it seems that certain Wikipedians have been taken in by this strategy, and are starting to echo it on this talk page. Fortunately, Wikipedia policies are in place to prevent this partisan, agenda-driven disruption." [entire post]

Small amounts of this, even from an editor with Scjessey's history of contentious behavior on the talk page, would be better ignored, but it continues on and on and makes it burdensome to try to contribute in a civil rational way to the discussion. As the "How to avoid remedies" section I quoted from, above, it also states Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian. His conduct has been very, very far from that. In reviewing this, administrators should consider whether it looks like he's even tried to contribute in a model way.

His presence on the talk page is a net hindrance rather than help to editors trying to discuss edits to the article, so the best solution would be to topic ban him for the duration of the election campaign. In addition to his ramping up the heat, he provides hardly any light: When he cites Wikipedia content policy, especially WP:BLP he does so inaccurately (ignoring WP:WELLKNOWN) and he ignores facts that others bring up. -- Noroton (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

New developments since the original posting of this complaint
From the Talk:Barack Obama page:


 * Just to put "relationship" into context. I would describe my "relationship" with Noroton as more involved and elaborate than the brief association Obama had with Ayers. Making a mountain out of a molehill is a typical election strategy, and the Republicans have always been the masters of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, your second sentence is WP:SOAPBOX material, not related in any way to article development. This is something you do very often. Why don't you comply with that policy? Wikipedia is not: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1] Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. -- Noroton (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase then. You are making a mountain out of a molehill by doing everything you can to portray what is essentially a harmless, work-related association in the worst possible light, echoing the Republican campaign talking points you have so diligently been reporting with all your sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(end excerpt)

I've been referring to nonpartisan news articles and an editorial from an influential opinion magazine that doesn't particularly go gaga over the Republican candidate. -- Noroton (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd hardly call you a victim, Noroton. You have been assaulting viciously anyone who disagrees with you for days. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 01:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Noroton is increasingly adopting the tone and tactics of the most disruptive editors from these pages - calling the editors he agrees with a pro-Obama "machine", accusing people concerned about his own editing problems of orchestrating a plot against him, accusing people of editing just to promote their own POV.  I have refrained from updating the concerns I raised about Noroton's editing, below, because I haven't received any great answers yet on how to calm things, but things are much calmer right now anyway - he only called me "troubling" and "tendentious" once today.  But the accusations of bad faith are unwelcome and the talk pages are still disrupted not only by the tireless attempts to promote links between Obama and Ayers, but also the hostile responses when those efforts fail.  We really ought to figure out how to keep everyone collegial on the various pages.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Responses stricken due to retraction/striking by Noroton of certain comments - Wikidemon (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If the consensus is that he is a disruptive and POV-pushing editor -- and this seems to be the case -- then especially given the terms of the article's probation, a topic ban for a couple of weeks seems not only justified but increasingly necessary. If he is a negative asset to the editing process, and is still going around antagonizing constructive editors, this seems a no-brainer. His apology was strained at best. Arjuna (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[out] As a target I have to say that "never mind - I take it back" is no apology. Is this junior high school? The comment posted above by Noroton speaks for itself, whether he struck it out or not. I don't know exactly what it means when he says that I "chime in to shoot the wounded", but it sure sounds defamatory to me. Is this going to be allowed to continue? Tvoz / talk 09:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a poor way of saying that you criticize only those who you disagree with, ignore worse behavior from those who attack those you disagree with. I don't think I said it well at all, and now that you point out it could be open to worse interpretations, I've redacted it. I've discussed your behavior with you on my talk page. It doesn't look like you've changed. Noroton (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) - Frankly, I don't understand how it has been allowed to go as far as it has. Much like with his Obama/Ayers efforts, Noroton has launched a smear campaign against me by taking a tiny molehill and turning it to a big-ass mountain with snow on it and everything. Despite his exhaustive effort to document my evil misdeeds in excruciating detail, it seems he has failed to get the topic ban he has been so desperately seeking for me and has now started lashing out at everyone else in frustration. This is a clear sign that I am just his first target, and he will continue to do this sort of thing until he has succeeded in shifting the "balance of power" enough that he can get his Obama/Ayers smear into Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey response
I hope that administrators will carefully read what Noroton has written above, and see it for the "house of cards" that it is.

This is a content dispute. Despite repeatedly discussing the disputed content, and repeated consensus not to include the disputed material (because it violates several Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays), there are a small minority of editors who continuously attempt to get this disputed material into the article by any and all means. It is the opinion of many editors, including myself, that this repetitive activity has become disruptive because of tendentiousness. This is completely unacceptable behavior, and worthy of sanction. I have described the comments of the reporting editor as "disruptive" because that is precisely what they are - a view shared by others. Furthermore, I view this very incident report as additional disruptive behavior - the same editor has previously abused the AN/I process (unsuccessfully) in an attempt to get me sanctioned. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bringing up new facts is not disruptive. Calling on discussion to end because you don't like the newly brought up facts is disruptive. Civilly discussing the new facts is not tendentious. Responding with arguments that pretend the new facts don't exist is tendentious. -- Noroton (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemo
I suggest that we use this page to bring up instances of disruption, and allow any patrolling administrators to fashion their own remedies, rather than for users involved in a spat and a content disagreement to directly advocate for sanctioning each other. That encourages a WP:BATTLE mentality that could worsen rather than improve the editing environment. On AN/I such disputes are routinely met with admonitions to both sides to stop it immediately, and ignore or disengage from one other.

Regarding the complaints, most have no merit even if they were true. It looks like a simple content disagreement over what policies say and how to apply them. Every editor is free to state his or her interpretation of policy. Scjessey's reading is in some cases spot-on and in all other cases (e.g. BLP) at least a plausible position.

It is also reasonable, and probably true, to claim that the renewed discussion is disruptive in scope and conduct, and should be shut down. Advocating for closing and archiving discussions, and declaring consensus, is certainly a legitimate thing to do and not disruptive if done within reason.

The discussion began in a disruptive way. A new user asked a simple but misguided question, why is there no criticism of Obama in the Obama article. The editor was soon joined by another with a similar issue (originally in a separate section, subsequently merged into this one)  The editors got the response that there is critical information about Obama in the article, that criticism sections are discouraged as POV forks, that there is a FAQ on the subject, that introducing criticism merely for the sake of changing the balance of the article is disfavored, etc. However, a few editors opined that the editors who "own" or "control" the article had made a cabal or "machine" to avoid criticism, and accused others of bad faith. One editor, with a problematic history on these pages including multiple blocks and accusations of sockpuppetry, reintroduced for perhaps the 20th to 30th time in the past few months a proposal to add more derogatory material about Obama concerning an alleged link with Bill Ayers.  The complaining editor picked up the issue, another editor added a heading that separated it from the disruption earlier in the discussion, and here we are. There is nothing wrong with characterizing the discussion as disruptive or opposing rehashing the issue again now, only 2 weeks after the exact same issue was decided.

Every single edit Noroton claims as evidence is no more than a content argument and/or a plea to close the discussion, with the exception of the 16:08, 24 August 2008 edit accusing people of advancing the Republican position, which Scjessey has taken back as referring to off-Wiki partisans

The only complaint that, if true, would warrant some action is the claim of incivility. If we do wish to handle this on an AN/I / ArbCom-style "case" basis, I think it is only fair to subject all of the participants to scrutiny. I do consider Noroton a fine editor who is usually reasonable, but his recent particpation (all available on the talk page) has been as abrasive and accusatory as Scjessey. He has accused other editors repeatedly of ignoring the discussion, adopted what appears to be a sarcastic tone, claimed some were rejecting reality or editing to protect a candidate they liked, and so on. I don't think that rises to any level higher than asking both sides to cool off. Two wrongs do not make a right, to be sure, and incivility is never good. But if we lower the bar this far there are quite a few editors that need some time off from the Obama articles.

ll of the editors involved are well aware of the existence and terms of article probation. This is the kind of dispute that, on othernotice boards, would bring a quick rejection as a content dispute and a rebuke to both sides to calm down and stop clogging the board with it. Let's use article probation as a way to avoid real disruption, and spend our efforts editing peacefully rather than squabbling. Wikidemo (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikidemo's defense of Scjessey misrepresents the facts:
 * Fact: It is obvious from my complaint that it focuses on Scjessey's behavior, not the content dispute. The 17:57 post has nothing to do with content, everything to do with a personal attack; the 22:20 post includes "The throw-it-all-in-and-maybe-something-will-stick approach", referring to me, as it echoes the 17:57 post and repeating the "disruptive" charge; the 21:29 post calling my efforts "agenda-based discourse" (another way of calling me a POV-pusher because I disagree with him, an obvious personal attack); the 16:08 post repeats the "again and again" theme that I've brought up and discussed this before and the "shoehorn" wording and bringing up "a serious WP:BLP violation" hoping that I'll be dissuaded from discussion by fearing a WP:BLPSE action; at 18:09 he's clearly talking about me bringing to the page "partisan, agenda-driven disruption". So don't tell me it's just a content dispute. That ignores too much.
 * Fact: The only reason "content" is in my complaint at all is because I quoted entire posts of Scjessey in order to help readers understand the context. I haven't objected -- here -- to a single content point Scjessey makes. When I object to him bringing up WP:BLP it's because doing it can have an undercurrent of "you can be disciplined by an admin under the terms of WP:BLPSE", something in keeping with Scjessey's comments about "disruptive"-ness. In the last two lines of my complaint I mention Scjessey's lack of
 * Fact: his recent particpation (all available on the talk page) has been as abrasive and accusatory as Scjessey. If that were true, then diffs just as bad could be provided from my edits, and you would see in context how much of that was response to the same and whether it escalated the heat. Every single time, Scjessey turns up the heat. In a heated discussion everyone knows some stray comments will be made that shouldn't have been made, but they should be slight and rare, not continual and nastier than the rest of the discussion.
 * Fact: I'm not the only one complaining about Scjessey's behavior in the past several days. From right on that page: User:DRJ's complaint about Scjessey's "demeaning tone" ; Curiousbystander complained here (Now Scjessey is accusing his fellow editors of "partisan, agenda-driven disruption." Is there an admin who will take care of this matter?) (second of two comments, scroll down to see it).
 * -- Noroton (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If we are doing arbcom style we should stick to arbcom style and not have the incident reporter argue against each of the responsive statements. A free-for-all here will have to be carefully limited and archived, and is unlikely to yield a productive result.  While there is indeed a complaint that mixes behavior, process, and content the diffs and the talk page behind them shows that the underlying dispute is mostly a matter of content.  As I mention the BLP concern is real (calling Ayers an "unrepentant terrorist" and thereby using him to smear Obama is a BLP violation against Ayers), and the characterization of the discussion as disruptive is fair.  I do not wish to make a case against Noroton to prove my point that there is more than one editor who got testy - I look forward to a collegial relationship with Noroton and lots of productive editing so I would rather not let a case like this poison the atmosphere.  DRJ's complaint is reasonable but very minor in context and Scjessey acknowledged it - that's how things are supposed to work, not banning editors.  Curious Bystander's participation on Obama matters has been problematic and bizarre, and is best not accepted at face value as evidence of anything.  Wikidemo (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My complaint is about behavior, not content. No matter how many times you say it isn't, you don't get to choose the facts. I never said Scjessey is the only person on the page with bad behavior, but no one's behavior approaches his in degree or sheer volume. That's why I complained here about him. You yourself a while back said something like "well, come to think of it, Ayers does seem to be an unrepentant terrorist", and the multitude of observers who have called Ayers an "unrepentant terorist" is like the stars in the sky. I have already been abused and defended myself at WP:AN/I on the phony BLP complaint about calling Ayers just what he is, just as I cite on the Talk:Barack Obama page. This is yet another comment by you that changes the subject from Scjessey's latest example of bad behavior. This goes far beyond "getting testy". Which editor on the Obama talk page as it now stands has three different complaints against him about his behavior? Only Scjessey. Unless you count his repeated complaints against me for bringing up facts he finds uncomfortable to contemplate. I do not wish to make a case against Noroton Don't make threats. using him to smear Obama -- that's been brought up and answered on the Obama talk page, with citations and quotations to three journalists stating their concerns. That you refuse to see  the difference between justifiable concerns about confirmed facts and "smears" shows your BLP concerns to be empty. Substantiation of the facts and raising reasonable questions about them are not consistent with smears.  In fact, I think I'll go say that on the talk page for the article, where discussion about this belongs. Noroton (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer the question are some long-term editors still in the picture with histories of confrontation and administrative reports far worse than Scjessey's. It was not a threat - it was an expression of reluctance to say what others are beginning to notice.  If you can take a step back, Noroton, you might see that you're a lot closer to a topic ban here than Scjessey, and your losing your cool of it here and on some article pages in the past few days is making that more likely.  I don't think that's going to happen from this report as it now stands and I certainly wouldn't favor it - but that seems to be the direction where this is moving. Wikidemo (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement from uninvolved editor Blaxthos
This sure smells like a content dispute. I don't see any unreasonable conduct or personal attacks made by Scjessey, and I'm inclined to believe that the accusations are completely baseless. Indeed, Scjessey seems to be raising valid concerns and I just don't see that the evidence given comes anywhere close to supporting the claims made by Norton. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please use your eyes rather than your nose. The detailed facts show the accusation is not baseless. Content concerns have been answered on the page. I'm not complaining here that he's ignoring the answers, although he is. The proper place to complain about that is on that talk page. Noroton (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Norton, every response save one has been basically the same: the diffs don't support the accusations, this appears to be a content dispute, and your behavior both before and during this proceeding has bordered being disruptive and petty.  Consistantly picking fights or snubbing your nose at everyone who disagrees with your assertions certainly doesn't win you any points, either.  Consensus is clearly against your assertions, and it would be most wise to step back and listen to what the community is telling you.  Please to be stopping the melodrama and spurious accusations.  Dankoo mulipass.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDamon
I strongly oppose oppose this, and concur with Scjessey's response above. None of the statements Noroton describe as personal attacks are; rather, they simply -- and correctly -- point out exactly how disruptive Noroton's behavior in endlessly rehashing the same material has been. To be blunt, Noroton's insistence on continuously reintroducing material that has zero chance of passing muster with Wikipedia policies and guidelines may itself be worthy of an incident report. -- Good Damon 23:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We have an article probation for a reason -- standards are to be enforced more strictly here. Scjessey's behavior is obviously bad, but you react to the complaint by trying to change the subject. Not to recognize new facts when they have been clearly presented on the page and to accuse an editor of rehashing old arguments when new ones have been presented is a sign of something other than the best Wikipedia practices. John Maynard Keynes: When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? In this case, the proper answer would be I re-examine my reasons to see if they still hold, which is what open-minded Wikipedia editors are supposed to do. Not complain that they don't like to see discussion, even when new facts arise. I'm sorry new information embarassing to Obama upsets you. I'm not trying to rub it in, just present my case and answer objections to it. -- Noroton (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I addressed the complaint. I said I didn't believe any of the statements you described as personal attacks were. Pointing out disruptive behavior is not a personal attack. If someone's swinging his arms wildly, it's not a personal attack to point out the danger that he'll hit me in the nose. As to the material you introduced, I read them -- combed them, even, for some sign that they indicated a special relationship between Ayers and Obama. They did not. Instead, they reported, again, on attempts to link the two. That's an important distinction; they reported on the attempts, not the link. That is why, as an editor relatively new to the Obama pages, I initially gave my support to adding a line about Ayers. Once I read the articles both you and WorkerBee74 provided in detail, I retracted that support. And that is why I have to concur with Scjessey's response here. -- Good Damon 03:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You've latched onto personal attacks when my complaint primarily involved three points about what we were supposed to avoid while the article is on probation, all of which Scjessey has violated. (And since you insist on taking the content dispute here: You've also latched onto the idea of a strong personal relationship when the controversy is over Obama associating with Ayers in a normal way and what that says about Obama. None of this involves failed "attempts" to find a "link". The "link" is what is already on public record [so far]. The controversy is about what reasonable people make of the known link and what questions it raises. Just as Barone, Freddoso and Chapman say it is. That's why calling this a "smear" is empty rhetoric.) -- Noroton (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to take so long to respond. I've been digging into the talk page archives for some history. I have to say, it hasn't changed my mind. I "latched onto personal attacks" because that was the point that didn't obviously, blatantly bring content dispute into this page. I only brought up the content dispute myself after it was apparent that I needed to for context. Put yourself in his position some time. Let's say these were the McCain pages we're discussing, and the same group of people kept bringing up some ludicrous smear against him... Initially, they tried citing leftwing blogs and Media Matters, but when that didn't work, they started citing mentions of those smears from leftwing blogs and Media Matters that appeared in mainstream reliable sources, in an attempt to give those smears some respectability. Anyone actually reading those mainstream reliable sources could see that they were articles about the smears, not about McCain, and didn't actually lend any credence to those smears. Let's say you had to point this out over, and over, and over, and over again, get it reviewed by admins and outside editors, get it arbitrated, etc... and when it was over, the same editors brought up the same thing again, and filed incident reports about you when you told them they were being disruptive. That's what I'm seeing as I go through the talk page archives. Look, I'm pretty new to these pages, and this is what it looks like from the outside. -- Good Damon 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Save it for the Talk:Barack Obama page (where I'll answer it). Stop getting off-topic. Recall what I actually said. Here:
 * The same page also states at the How to avoid being subject to remedies section:
 * Interact civilly with other editors;
 * Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article;
 * Avoid repeatedly discussing other editors, discuss the article instead;
 * Did he or did he not violate each one of these? Flagrantly. Worse than anyone else. To the detriment of the atmosphere. -- Noroton (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In a word, no. He didn't. I'll say it again: Pointing out when someone is being disruptive is not uncivil and does not violate article probation when it's true. Let me be blunt: I agree with his assessments. And I hope this and related issues on the take pages will be closed shortly. -- Good Damon 16:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How was I being disruptive? -- Noroton (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) This is the very first paragraph from WP:DISRUPT:"Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a mouthpiece for viewpoints that constitute original research. While notable minority opinions are welcome when verifiable through reliable sources, and constructive editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view."You may not be aware of it, but looking at the history on the talk page of Barack Obama, that's how your edits appear. A persistent, long-term effort to give undue weight to a minority view. That is the very essence of disruption. I do not believe it was intentional, but I do find the frequency with which you brought up the topic in question, no matter how often consensus weighed against you, a very straightforward demonstration of disruptive, tendentious editing. Policies and editing guidelines, including WP:RS and WP:NPOV, were ignored or interestingly interpreted repeatedly. It happened so often, I'm still catching up. Since you want to avoid discussion of content here, which would otherwise place this incident report in context, I will only say this: I find both his comments and his obvious frustration with this topic being continually reintroduced quite understandable. If anything, I'm surprised he didn't start bringing up WP:DISRUPT a lot earlier. -- Good Damon 17:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me state this simply and slowly: There is a difference between making the same case repeatedly, and having new developments and arguments and then making the case again. You might want to look at what WP:CONSENSUS says about that at WP:CCC ("people may change their minds over time when new things come up"). If you want to call bringing up something disruptive, you'll have to point out that I didn't have a new argument and didn't bring up new points when I brought up the case again. (And if you do, please provide diffs.) It is your unsupported assertion that mine was an "effort to give undue weight to a minority view". It is your assertion here that Scjessey's constant rudeness on that page is somehow justified by your unsupported conclusion. You make another unsupported assertion that I was doing "original research". I've already answered your uninformed comments about WP:SYNTH on the talk page, where discussion about that belongs. You really should read WP policies and guidelines with more care, and wait to criticize other editors only after you've understood what those guidelines actually say. Discussion is for editors to exchange views about what should go on the page based on policy, cited facts and commonsense logic, all of which I provided. Note that what you're doing here is taking the language of the probation page and wikilawyering it into saying what it doesn't say. And you're doing it based on saying that someone you disagree with doesn't have a case to make when it's rather easy to prove that I've been making a case and making a new case with new facts. -- Noroton (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice that every statement you make is predicated on the idea that to mention Ayers in connection with Obama is to conduct a partisan smear. (Therefore I'm being tendentious by wanting that in the article; therefore I'm doing some kind of crazy WP:SYNTH act or committing WP:NOR by mentioning only scattered sources and fringe opinionators; therefore I'm being disruptive because I'm one of many editors discussing the issue at length). You know, your entire case is flushed down the tubes simply by looking at what I'm saying on the talk page  and here and here. Have you responded to those edits where I cite reputable commentators who are not smear merchants? Why don't you? Then you'd be confronted with the fundamental flaw in your argument here. -- Noroton (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh... OK, I didn't want to go here, but I guess it's unavoidable.
 * August 25: and  - You cite The Case Against Barack Obama by partisan opinion writer David Freddoso and two editorial blogs as new information. They fail WP:RS: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." Especially in a WP:BLP, these are to be utterly avoided. Were they news blogs and not opinion pieces, they would certainly pass muster, but they are not.
 * August 25: - You cite a news article that mentions attempts by Obama's opponents to tie Ayers to Obama: "Mr. Ayers has become a prime exhibit in the effort by Mr. Obama’s presidential rivals to highlight what could be politically radioactive associations." (quote from article) The article makes no statement of fact that Obama and Ayers had any relationship beyond cordial professionalism.
 * August 24: - You cite an editorial column.
 * August 23: - You cite Time magazine which notes Ayers this way: "Obama has worked on education issues in Chicago with William Ayers and has visited the home of Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dohrn. Both were leaders of the violent, leftist Weather Underground." Time does not synthesize this into an indication of friendship and non-professional association. So far, this is the best reference you've provided, and it states unequivocally that they... er... knew each other.
 * August 23: - Another blog, this one reporting on Republican efforts to link Ayers and Obama. I'm just three days into your contribution history, and I'm beginning to wonder if you'll cite the fact that I just used "Ayers" and "Obama" in the same sentence.
 * August 23: - Large introduction of blogs and opinion pieces, most of which note the fact that Republicans are trying to tie Ayers and Obama together, and several of which note that the UIC released records of the work they did together. Perhaps a notable piece of information for the Obama–Ayers controversy article.
 * I could go on. Good lord could I go on. Slogging through the archives is making my head spin. Just in the last three days, you've introduced blogs and opinion pieces as if they qualify as reliable sources for anything beyond the opinions of their writers, when what you need is a reliable source for statements of fact, stating explicitly what you have been trying for months to synthesize. There are all sorts of other articles the Obama-Ayers controversy belongs in, but the WP:BLP article isn't it until -- and I want to be very clear on this -- until a reputable news source (not an opinion piece, not a partisan critic's book, not a rightwing -- or leftwing -- blog) makes a clear judgment on what Obama and Ayers' relationship was. It's not our job to determine that and put it in his bio. That is the very essence of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Look... I don't know what their relationship was. You don't know what their relationship was. Politicians hold meet-n-greets and write stuff for each other all the time, while often barely knowing each other, out of professional courtesy. In my RL job, I frequently work with the same groups of people in meetings, and I'd be hard-pressed to pick them out of a lineup. To continually -- and believe me, it looks pretty continuous in the archives -- attempt to synthesize some kind of analysis of their relationship, over a span of months and months, is disruptive. I just provided a three-day snapshot of the kind of behavior that got such vehement responses from Scjessey, and I have to say, if I'd had to put up with that for as long as he has, I might get a little short too. At this point, I would like to propose that this incident be closed, post-haste. I don't think it's going anywhere, I don't think it's productive, and I really don't want to dredge any further into the archives for added context. Oy... -- Good Damon 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your head is spinning to hard. Why don't you read with more care? You've got it in your head that I'm trying to prove something that I'm not trying to prove at all. I didn't assert that this is important because they had an especially close relationship. I asserted -- and pointed this out to Scjessey when he got this wrong -- that Obama "associated" himself with Ayers. The way he did this is enough to make it controversial and enough to show why various reliable sources are concerned about it. Barone's, Freddoso's and the other guy's comments don't rely on whether or not there was any kind of close relationship at all (although some of them may use the word "friend", you can see from their comments that a much looser, more distant relationship consistent with the facts we know would not make a difference in their concerns). You are further confused -- totally confused -- about citations meant to show that the situation is (a) not just a smear, and (b) a matter so much reported on and commented on that following WP:WEIGHT would favor inclusion. For those purposes, we don't need sources for the article. Two sources for the article would be the NY Times and Washington Post sources already referred to. That's sufficient. If we wanted to say "Obama was criticized for it" we could use any of the three sources I mentioned because they are reliable in terms of reporting their own opinions, something that WP:RS and WP:BLP both allow. What I say, I have proof for. That's why I quote and link to so many sources on the talk page. Does that straighten it out for you? If you look at the talk page carefully, you'd see that. You don't understand the discussion and you want to close it down. Calm down and get a grip. And the next time you go around criticizing other editors, understand what the hell is going on, first. -- Noroton (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Without getting to the merits of the content position here, I think that the incident reporter's berating of people who disagree on content may be part of the problem.Wikidemo (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement from Justmeherenow
I don't like the smell of bearing down only on Scjessey. But, that said, it would be great if all regular editors on the Obama bio's talkpage would come to scrupulously adhere to some pretty formal version or another of Wikipedia-style argumentation. A simple regimen I'd like to see encouraged would be to (A) only discuss concrete proposals, (B) back up arguments with specifics, and (C) keep bloviations that are neither (A) nor (B) to a bare minimum, while (D) solely advocating that others' edits and behavior abide by entirely non-ideosyncratic interpretations of policies and guidelines and (E) abiding by the same oneself . $\sim$ Justmeherenow     00:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC) No more pie in the sky for me. Instead I sign this pledge, "I will accept the culture of the B.O. page as it is, without trying to subvert it any more." (Overtly.) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     17:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement from a not-involved Arjuna
I have been editing on The Obama Nation, not the Obama page, so haven't been following this blow by blow, but it looks like a classic content dispute to me, and an all-too-quick assertion of "personal attack" when none has actually occured. Frustrations can easily arise over repeated attempts to insert scurrilously POV material; when this continues, it is indeed disruptive, and if it continues, worthy of an ANI report and possible topic ban for Noroton. Scjessey is on solid ground. Arjuna (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Content disputes are over content. Just one example: you have been completely taken in by the Republican smear campaign and have done everything in your power, for months, to shoehorn policy-violating BS into the article on their behalf. This has become tiresome and disruptive, and it has to stop. Why don't you create a blog or something? This has nothing to do with content and everything to do with a personal attack. Look at what WP:NPA says: Comment on content, not on the contributor. [...] As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. [...] There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. (boldface added) Also: A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. -- Noroton (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose then the question becomes: just how many times does an editor have to point out that requests for additions of POV material that violates Wikipedia policy before s/he becomes understandably perturbed? I am not trying to pick a fight with you, Noroton -- I am not and don't want to get directly involved. Take the personalities involved out of the equation, or put the shoe on the other foot -- but I think reasonable people can agree it's a legitimate question. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't need to get into a fight, but I'm going to point out where you're wrong here. He continually escalates. If no incivility is there, he inserts it. If some incivility is there, he makes it worse. Continually. He has a longstanding habit of doing this, and the probation put on the article hasn't stopped him. For previous examples, in which he's said almost the exact same things as I've quoted here, word-for-word look at this: User talk:Noroton. Just how many times do I as an editor need to watch this uncivil crap, complain to him about it and then watch him do it again and again and again? How many times do I have to look up information, put it on the talk page, look up policies and guidelines, put quotes from them on the page, and watch this uncivil editor again and again totally ignore what I've written, fail to read up on the material he constantly comments about, read his put downs of anyone who doesn't disagree with him -- calling them "Republicans" "POV pushers", rabid, partisans -- even as he acts the part himself? Whatever he's doing here, it isn't an attempt to build an encyclopedia. On policy matters, he continually invokes WP:BLP and ignores the WP:WELLKNOWN section that applies to biography articles such as this one. He continually invokes WP:NPOV while continually ignoring the WP:ASF, the first words of which are, in bolface: Assert facts, including facts about opinions. It also states, When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. Getting back to his incivility, look at the following not as something meant to persuade you one way or the other about what he's asserting, but look at the uncivil nature of the comments -- which, as I recall, were not provoked by incivility on someone else's part (all from the Obama talk page). These were all directed at WorkerBee74, who was conducting himself quite civilly throughout, as I recall:
 * You keep on mentioning WP:WELLKNOWN as if it's some kind of magic wand that makes your points valid, but that simply isn't the case. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2008
 * The "relationship" was briefly notable when it came up in a TV debate, but beyond that it is all but non-existent (apart from by the right-wing propaganda machine, of course). -- same post
 * Oh come now, WB74, [...] Let's drop this smear campaign now, shall we? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2008
 * And since lame arguments are popular at the moment -- in reply to WorkerBee74 and pretty obviously referring to him'' -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough of this agenda-based activism already! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. That is complete nonsense. Wikipedia is littered with poorly-sourced articles, and all you have done is identified a few which use your preferred source and used them as justification for your proposed inclusion. You are advocating lowering the standard of this BLP to bring it into line with shoddily-written BLPs. Awesome plan, that. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2008
 * The above were all directed at WorkerBee74. The one below seems directed at anybody who favors adding mention of Ayers to the article:
 * the only reason I can see for wanting to include it in this article is to try to hope some of Ayers' alleged guilt will rub off on Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2008
 * You see, Scjessey has a long record of this. We put the probation on the page in part to get rid of this. Now who the hell were you saying should get perturbed? -- Noroton (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You should consider striking that last comment. Being perturbed seems to be part of the problem.  Also, citing anybody's interactions with WorkerBee74 as evidence against the person does not seem very helpful.Wikidemo (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't go after people acting civilly themselves, no matter what else you're mad at them for. You're expected to refrain from that. Noroton (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Gamaliel
I find it difficult to believe we would consider sanctioning or restricting Scjessey and do nothing about far more disruptive people. This isn't to say I do or do not think Scjessey has been disruptive, just that the examples presented here do not compare to the behavior of others. Everyone should take a step back, maybe a day or two off these articles, voluntarily, and come back and shake hands. I stopped editing one for a couple days and I find it puts everything in perspective, or at least cools me off. Gamaliel (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I SUPPORT in essence this proposal by Gamaliel. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     02:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by BehnamFarid

 * Support I support the proposal by User:Noroton for the reason of my unhappy experience with User:Scjessey. For details please consult:, and . The reason given to me by Scjessey is simply not convincing and is indicative of his bias. --BF 02:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

Statement by
Norton is not the one to be calling Scjessey disruptive. This proposal would only work if Norton was also topic banned, as he is just as disruptive as Scjessey, if not more so. This is just an attempt to eliminate one of Norton's key opponents in the inclusion of the Ayers material. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 23:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Loonymonkey
With all due respect, this entire discussion is just ridiculous. Nothing described in these accusations rise to the level of anything requiring sanctions (much less a topic ban as Noroton is demanding) and it is increasingly difficult to assume that his reason for starting this is simply a good-faith desire to preserve civility rather than a direct attack on another editor whom he has a very personal grudge against. If Noroton's interest in this was simply a desire to enforce manners (and not a personal spat with another editor), there are two or three editors to this page that are are genuinely disruptive, frequently edit-war, and are downright rude. They commit offenses as bad, or far worse, than the examples given above with nearly every edit. So why is he going after Scjessey without even mentioning them? It's hard to believe it's a coincidence that they are the small minority that agree with Noroton's position. It is especially telling that in accusing Scjessey above, Noroton defends WB74, an S.P.A. editor that routinely refers to anyone who disagrees with him as an "Obama campaign worker." Noroton has refused to accept consensus for months and has basically tried to win through filibuster what he wasn't able to achieve through argument. I, like many other editors, am simply too exasperated to continually engage him in the same arguments week after week over the exact same material. This entire incident report is nothing more than another example of Noroton's ability to waste a lot of time in order to make make a point. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with this statement by Loonymonkey- especially the part about not being willing to continually engage in the same arguments week after week after week after week, and then being attacked for not being willing to answer each argument again and again when others have done so adequately. Noroton couches his filibuster in more genteel language than WorkerBee74 and some others have done, but the end result is the same. Scjessey has shown more tolerance for responding to the filibuster than I have, or than Loonymonkey has, or than quite a few others have - and he is to be thanked for defending the consensus that other editors participated in creating. That's what filibuster is designed to do - to wear down the opposition until they have no more strength to protest.  Noroton is continuing that tactic here.  Tvoz / talk 18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemo
seems to have lost it.

In general a respectable if tenacious editor, for the past two days at least he has been lashing out and insulting a lot of editors here. For example:
 * For myself I "don't understand" and am "seriously wrong" in my grasp of policy", am "disruptive" and "tendentious"(X2), and engage in "point" violations (all for removing a BLP violation), engage in "specious" reasoning, am "patronizing" when I try to reach out and make peace, am "censoring Wikipedia" for not wanting someone to be called a "terrorist", do not "actually read" policy and discussion pages I comment on(X2), "Dont' get it", am "in over my head" editing here and am "ignorant", "pointless", engage in "obvious" hypocrisy, "don't understand","don't have a clue", don't know "the hell" what I'm talking about, and my edits are "bullshit."
 * User:Erik the Red 2 also does not "actually read" or understand policy,, relies on the tendentiousness of pro-Obama editors who gang up because they simply want to remove criticism of Obama and make partisan attacks emanating from the Obama campaign.
 * User:Scjessey, who Noroton would "love" to get sanctioned, does not read either apparently, may not make talk page comments without reliable sources,, and exhibits "constant rudeness" for which he should be banned (see above). While the bizarre incident report above was in process, Noroton filed an AN/I report on Scjessey for saying in a talk page that two anti-Obama operatives have a "vested interest" in McCain's victory.
 * User:GoodDamon also cannot read and needs to "comment like an adult", "calm down and get a grip", is "confused", "doesn't understand the discussion", doesn't "understand what the hell" is going on, had his argument "flushed down the tubes" because of a "fundamental flaw", and is "uninformed"
 * There is also plenty of sarcasm and taunting

Note that the way I sorted it many of these links are duplicates. But this is only in the last 14 hours. The heightened combativeness has gone on for at least two days since Noroton filed the above incident report against Scjessey. It is with great reluctance that I mention this here, and I am not advocating to ban or block Noroton (though at this point I am done trying to apologize for and defend him against that). I am just at wit's end and not sure what to do next. This causes lots of stress and wasted time, and has shut down the Obama pages again. Noroton's incivility continued and only intensified after I tried to plead with and warn him. At this point I don't know what to do and would welcome some help or suggestions - complete the report? Simply close down the unproductive discussions? Redact the insults when I see them? Someone have a talk with him? Thanks.


 * Please note - I am not concerned about the content issue here. We have ways of sorting that out.  Nor do I care about the editor's attitude, agenda, or behavior as long as we can live with it.  I come here with a specific problem, that participation in Obama-related pages has become impossible.  The entire agenda right now on three pages is a single issue that we seem to have settled a long time ago but one editor wants to keep open indefinitely.  If I participate, then for every comment I make I get berated and cursed at, and told I am an idiot who refuses to read policy or sources.  If I say I cannot tolerate such conditions I am told silence equals consent and the discussion will proceed without me.  I'm not here to punish anyone, just trying to figure out what to do.  Wikidemo (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Further note - It is a positive sign that Noroton's responded at all, but his his statement refusing to participate or improve unless an administrator makes him is problematic and suggests he may still be unready to edit productively. The misrepresentations of the edit history and accusations of "bad behavior", goading, bad faith "strategies", and so on suggest he is simply battling over this. The 14-hour most recent slice of the edit history I provided speaks for itself.  Cursing, repeated taunts, harangues, etc.  Yes, I brought the issue up here after exhausting every other method.  That's why I asked the question.  What else is there to do?  When an editor calls my edits "bullshit" and tells me repeatedly after every post that I am clueless, need to read policy, am over my head, etc., and says that if I won't respond to that the discussion can continue without me, there really isn't much else.  I can fight back (not good - I won't be dragged down), delete or redact his comments (better, but he would only accuse me of something), ignore (won't work because by insulting each of my posts he makes it impossible for me to operate), or bring it up in a neutral forum.  I choose the latter as, I hope, the best way to deal with this.  Ideally Noroton would agree to simply stop insulting and lobbing accusations against other editors, as the article probation terms (and civility policy) dictate.   If not let's talk about it here, please, as an alternative to dealing with it elsewhere.  Wikidemo (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing incivilities and now revert warring over BLP vio "terrorist" associations
From when the report was filed until approximately a day ago (I'll update to cover the last 24 hours if need be):
 * GoodDamon: "You're an exclusionist. Fine. Exclude all but a couple of sentences each on Obama's books. Then you'll be consistent."
 * Me: "troubling attitude", "remove facts...only because you don't like...", "tendentious", "your comment is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:WELLKNOWN... What legitimate encyclopedic purpose is there for your 06:02 comment?", "This is WP:SOAPBOX material. Please don't do that" (X2)
 * Scjessey: "soapboxing", "This is something you do very often. Why don't you comply with that policy?", expands on coamplaint against Scjessey, "did you read anything about this before you posted about this?"
 * Gennerally: " Here's how the Talk:Barack Obama Machine works: Scjessey goads, the victim retaliates, Wikidemon files a complaint and Tvoz chimes in to shoot the wounded, but only the wounded who are not fervid Obama supporters. I've never seen a single edit that contradicts this pattern. (never mind -- I take it back)"
 * Tvoz:"you criticize only those who you disagree with, ignore worse behavior from those who attack those you disagree with", "I've discussed your behavior with you on my talk page. It doesn't look like you've changed."

September 1, 2008
And now revert warring across multiple articles to brand Bill Ayers, the Weathermen, and Bernadette Dohrn as "terrorists" or "unrepentant terrorists".
 * Bill Ayers - 4 inserts of "terrorist" in 8 hours[ (cannot tell if this is 2RR, 3RR or 4RR because some are far-ranging edits that insert "terrorist" in the aritcle in multiple places)
 * Bernardine Dohrn Inserted same "terrorist" BLP vio twice in two days, no attempt to reach consensus. 3X.
 * Controversy over an Obama–Ayers connection - 1RR in two places but against known consensus - inserted coatrack (wright, rezko, "violent"), and multiple "terrorist" mentions
 * Weathermen -

Incivility / revert war: PS: please do not thread comments here - feel free to start a section for your own, or I will move them to a section for you - Wikidemo (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Case Against Barack Obama"your objection is met in footnote 4, have you read the article?"
 * Controversy over an Obama–Ayers connection - "Scjessey, learn the facts, first; then assert what they are" / "Yet again, Scjessey, you make wild assertions without any basis in fact. At all. Do you actually know much about Ayers?"
 * Weathermen "you are being disruptive" "your behavior looks like a delaying tactic" "embarassing to the candidate you support" Wikidemon (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement from Arjuna
I have not had much in the way of interactions to speak of with Noroton, so this is not personal. But from reading other editors' comments and the thread summaries, it is obvious that Noroton is in serious need of -- at minimum -- an enforced time-out. Indeed, given the terms of article probation, if his behavior does not violate those terms, then I don't know what does. This kind of repeated, intensifying abuse of other editors (especially when they have reached out in a conciliatory fashion) should not be tolerated. I think a topic ban should be seriously discussed, but again, at minumum, a block for a substantial period. P.S. Wikidemo, don't know if this is where you wanted comments, but feel free to move them as you wish. Arjuna (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see much evidence of contrition in Noroton's response. Given his recent comments, that -- and an unambiguous apology without trying to justify his comments as "understandable" -- seems a prerequisite. Otherwise, I regret to say that topic ban for a certain period of time is the appropriate course. Arjuna (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Justmeherenow
It should feel nice to finally be yawing with the majority, still I marvel that folks' are unable to recognize the same type turns of phrase used by partisan-mates as unacceptable when they've complained about them when used by opponents. I've watched report after report come down the pike against members of my faction, many clacked out on Wikidemo's keyboard, wherein the proponets stay oblivious to the same provocations when engaged in by other members of their faction. Yet the typical reaction to these has been, "Oh my! So and so said that!" Whereas my own reaction was to shake my head in wonder.

Yet I guess I'm enough of a natural "almost-ally" with the opposing faction [I'm actually an Obama supporter] that, as I watched Noroton's report against Scjessey slowly slog its way down the Turnpike up the rolling hills and through the sunny dales of the Pennsylvania countryside [yawn], my wonder was that Noroton would stay oblivious to his own likewise-provocative words. Yet now the typical reaction to Noroton's report isn't "Oh my! Scjessy said that!"; instead what's happened is my yawn has become collective.

It's enough to drive one to drink! In fact, let's all -- enjoy -- one -- together here, now. "Bartender -- ? --Justme $\sim$ Justmeherenow     12:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't the forum to promote my next idea, but here goes. A subtle prejudice against prejudiced people is useful to encourage people not to be prejudiced, or so I believe; therefore, in the interest in maintaining Wikipedia's ideals of vigorous logic and editing standards, Wikipedia would benefit from an expedited blocking mechanism -- similar to the one triggered by users who threaten legal action -- that would quickly take effect against any editor who resorts at very first blush to advocate an opponent be permanendly banned from the pages they both work on, for an alleged offense whose egregiousness the greater community doesn't see as an open-and-shut case! $\sim$ Justmeherenow     18:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo: "[Noroton] has shut down the Obama pages again..." Go ahead and edit the article. When overdogs must suffer the prostests of underdogs, sometimes these overdogs simply protest too much. If you abandoned the talkpage re Ayers plenty of your confederates would likely be able to take up the slack. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     19:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDamon
I think perhaps some context is helpful here, coming so soon as this incident report does after the previous one.

In the case of Scjessey above, the turns of phrase were blunt and toned harshly, but only after literally months of responding to the same information and variations thereof. And none of the phrases Scjessey used were insulting or derogatory towards Noroton, although certainly he denigrated the material Noroton tried to introduce. He describes the proposed content as "fringe stuff" and the like. But those are, however harshly phrased, comments on the content, not comments on the editor. Considering how long he had to explain, over and over again, why that content didn't pass muster -- why opinion blogs and editorials aren't reliable sources for statements of fact, and why even if they somehow were, the proposed content was off-topic -- I'm surprised he didn't take a harsher tone earlier.

There is a world of difference between that behavior and Noroton's. As a relative newcomer to the Obama pages, I have been astonished at how quickly Noroton became combative and antagonistic when it became obvious the content dispute would not go his way. His comments became very personal, and very directed. Disagreements with him became failures of understanding and reading comprehension on the part of the one disagreeing, instead of differing interpretations of the same policies and guidelines.

I think a lot of this could have been avoided with an rfc on Noroton's proposed content, with an understanding on both sides that after the arguments were heard and weighed, the decision would be binding. Noroton should have requested this as soon as it became apparent that consensus was against him. Instead, he chose to belittle myself and others. The funny thing is, if Noroton would make such a request now, I would support closing this incident immediately, because I still prefer to see editors who disagree working with one another. But his attacks against other people have to stop, and he has to start addressing the arguments of the other editors instead of their reading comprehension. In further reviewing Noroton's edits, I regretfully endorse a topic block, although I would add that I do not support it with any permanency. The insistence that unreliable sources are reliable, the refusal to listen when told his judgments about the Ayers/Obama relationship amount to OR, his combativeness, and the single-mindedness which which he has pursued an agenda against all consensus leads me to believe he needs a cooling down period. -- Good Damon 13:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Erik the Red 2
Noroton for weeks has been soapboxing and soapboxing, ranting and ranting, about how material about Bill Ayers must go into the Barack Obama article, and saying that anyone who disagrees with him must be a scheming, imbecilic Democratic party operative who obviously is involved in a conspiracy with fellow idiotic party operatives to silence any right-wing POV pushers like himself. And now, completely oblivious to his own disruption, he files a report against Scjessey in an act of utter hypocrisy. Noroton's soapboxing and POV-pushing must stop now. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 14:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey
I have received a notification that I have been mentioned in this discussion; however, I would like to recuse myself from involvement in this proposal. As the subject of the previous proposal, I feel that my involvement in this one would be inappropriate, and possibly even incendiary. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Flatterworld
I am sick and tired of 'contributors' such as Noroton who instead of doing serious research first and basing the encyclopedia articles on what they find, have already made up their minds as to what they want to say, and then cherry-pick sources for quotes which will 'support' their pre-determined views. Noroton refuses to allow the inclusion of statements from original source material (such as Ayers's own book and Ayers's own letter to the NYT editor) because it doesn't fit into his view. Instead, he has done nothing but use media 'sources' which all base their soundbites and 'facts' on the 2001 NYT interview of Ayers which has been discredited. Those aren't 'corroborating' sources, as they rely on the same interview (echoes of Chalabi and Curveball and Judith Miller). Noroton's misuse of the Steve Chapman column was the last straw. He deliberately spun it into something it wasn't, just so he could include a footnote to a responsible, reliable journalist and long-time member of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune. imo, he should be banned from all election articles permanently. He simply isn't acting in good faith, and he's therefore damaging the reputation of Wikipedia. There's no shortage of responsible adults working on these articles, so it's not as if the world will stop if he's blocked. Flatterworld (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Noroton
I would like to apologize for treating certain editors who have commented here with a small degree of the contempt that they have repeatedly displayed toward me. I promise to continue to de-escalate conflicts in the future by trying to respond to the contempt that these and other editors have displayed, in each case, with no contempt in return, although the behavior of these certain editors is quite difficult for anyone who disagrees with them to deal with, and no human being can promise not to slip up in the face of their repeated provocative behavior. Nevertheless, I will do my best. Any editor who looks at any of Wikidemo's diffs should look at the context of poor behavior surrounding those edits, including Wikidemo's poor behavior. With Wikidemo, I was responding to his very, very tortured interpretations of policy, which just happened to benefit his POV. I should definitely have been more patient with Wikidemo's obfuscating, disruptive, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, because I have policy and the facts on my side.

Wikidemo and I have been in some content disputes related to Bill Ayers. Wikidemo said here that what set him off and caused him to file this complaint was this edit, which was entirely concerned with a content dispute. I had reacted to this arrogant statement -- The proposed edit is rejected, and given that the discussion has become uncivil I don't think further consensus discussion is a good idea right now. -- by saying this -- What makes you think it's not going to go on without you?. He prefers that I disengage from certain articles so that he can maintain the status quo on them, which benefits his POV, and when I tell him that I have solidly sourced, policy-compliant information to add to them, this appears to make him more upset, which makes me doubt his motives, both in the content dispute and in bringing his dispute into a behavioral forum (something he has a long history of doing).

I'm dealing with some computer troubles right now, which started just after I was emailed by someone I don't know who suggested I visit the web page of a certain Wikipedia editor. Perhaps that's a coincidence.

I'm not going to let Wikidemo's bad behavior goad me into incivility to him. I'm going to do some productive editing, and I'm not going to let Wikidemo, with any of his various strategies -- including letting this forum be a distraction to me -- prevent me from doing that. If Wikidemo is hoping to get a trigger-happy admin to block or topic ban me, I suggest that admin approach me first with questions. I don't expect to comment here further unless an uninvolved admin asks me to, because I don't see any point to it. Since the root of this is Wikidemo's inability to separate his political passions from neutral Wikipedia work, I invite him to disengage. He well knows that I've been able to add information positive, negative and neutral to articles related to Obama and other topics that I have opinions about. He shouldn't be so afraid of me doing it here. Noroton (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandals
Not sure where I'm going with this, but lots of vandalism in the past two days. Barack Obama and its talk page have been semi-protected long term due to N-word vandals. Wikidemo (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * - Barack Obama is a former Weatherman
 * - Weathermen are terrorist
 * - Bill Ayers known for "terror bombing" and " to bad you have not ability to read and think, but libs can't help them self)" "truth will set you free" "mindless ignorant dronebot"
 * - Ayers is a friend of Obama
 * - Ayers committed "string of terrorist bombings".
 * - "We were terrorists"
 * - "Barak Obama's friend"
 * - "ANY anonymous twit" "some McCain Flunky" "ALL full of it"
 * - "an former terroist"
 * - "nigger" "nigger that should eat watermelon" communism/nigger


 * Yet conceivably some, added to the Ayers article, may be "good faith." $\sim$ Justmeherenow     06:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Conceivably" is the operative word. Six of the ten are clearly vandals.  There's no evidence one way or the other on the other four.  Whether by vandalism or something else IP editors are showing up with hit-and-run edits to call the Weathermen "terrorists", and Obama and Ayers "friends".  Wikidemo (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Buddyg04 edit-warring on Obama-related pages.
User:Buddyg04 is repeatedly adding (and reverting any attempts to remove) a lengthy attack editorial to Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama and Political positions of Barack Obama. The addition is clearly inappropriate as it violates WP:NPOV, provides only a blog as a reference, and isn't even relevant to the sections. S/he has previously been informed of article probation. I'm not going to keep reverting the edits myself as I don't want to get drawn into this war, but something needs to be done. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Will file 3RR report momentarily. Wikidemon (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC) - I ended up not filing this.  Hopefully, the warnings will work.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's at it again, attempting to add the same irrelevant material without any sort of consensus (as well as personal attacks in edit summaries). --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)