BruceFisher

Welcome!

Hello, BruceFisher! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Footwarrior (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk pages

Hi. I hope that you don't mind if I offer an explanation in response to this. I am not a Wikipedia administrator, and the project does not assign users to "police" others' user pages. I simply made it clear to CandaceDempsey (talk · contribs) that promotional text on her talk page did not conform to the concept of Wikipedia not being "a soapbox or means of promotion" - and that the policy of What Wikipedia is not applies as much to user pages as articles in the Wikipedia article mainspace. I strove to avoid biting with the acknowledgement at the start of the comment and the note of encouragement that concludes it. Is there anything in particular that you would appreciate assistance with? SuperMarioMan 14:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was simply curious as to why you were on Candace's page at all. You were obviously looking to see if you could find a violation. That's what you seem to do. I see you posting Wikipedia rules more often than any other poster. Your sarcastic politeness does little to disguise your motives. The article is getting the attention it needs. I am confident the article will improve drastically in the near future. Posting up Wikipedia rules every chance you get may cause minor distraction but it will not stop the much needed work from being completed. BruceFisher (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SuperMarioMan 06:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the section that you have just added to the talk page comes across as little more than unsubstantiated accusation, I have started a new thread at the Administrator's Noticeboard so that the wider community may investigate. SuperMarioMan 06:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Your response here confirms my earlier response to you that you seem to be more concerned with policing Wikipedia than you do at actually creating accurate content. BruceFisher (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not much has resulted, yet, from the "Monkeys" quip, and because most admins are very busy dealing with openly hostile edit-wars, there might be no action at all. Instead, there is often a "business as usual" response in many ANI cases, where just the aura of entering an ANI incident causes level-headed people to regain composure. The tolerance for mind games is a major reason why many scholars will not associate with Wikipedia, and those that do, often hide the fact from colleagues. Among scientists, there is often a "code of honesty" to be observed, and these mind games are typically incompatible with that aspect. -Wikid77 09:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

These repeated allegations of "policing" are becoming tiresome. If you take a look at these editing stats, you'll find that since I arrived here in 2006, 85% of my 4,400 edits have been to the main namespace (i.e. building article content). An article that I pretty much wrote from scratch and helped to promote to Featured Article status was recently selected as Today's Featured Article (i.e. it appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page). In addition, I have 13 Good Articles to my credit. To state that I do not "create accurate content" is, quite simply, false. I don't mind claims about "sarcastic politeness" and "motives" quite so much, inaccurate though they may be. SuperMarioMan 09:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

SuperMarioMan, before this conversation goes any farther, please answer one question for me. Why did you visit Candace Dempsey's talk page? BruceFisher (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

My reasoning is clearly set out at the user talk page in question. I have nothing more to add to what I have already stated. Why do you continue to refer to this minor event when the matter has now been settled for days? SuperMarioMan 20:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(re to Bruce) I left a welcome on Candace's page. It takes a while to read and take in the many policies and guidelines which govern Wikipedia...but among the many things were the policies & guidelines concerning user pages. There was nothing amiss in SuperMarioMan's request...he is correctly pointing things out to her. I'm letting you know this so that you don't take things personal. If what he was doing was out of line or in any way harassment then one of us who are watching this would have said something to intervene. I'm neutral on the article content (read not taking sides) and hoping that having the differing opinions backed up by sources will give proper balance to the case/article. This particular issue, you should let go. If you haven't yet seen this, read Dispute resolution, it may help.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, thank you for the friendly response. I would like to make it clear that I had already let go. SuperMarioMan came to my talk page to bring it up again. I am fully aware of the fact that SuperMarioMan is a respected member of Wikipedia. The article in question has been the subject of heated discussion for a long time now. This type of enviroment has the potential to cause people to take actions they may normally not take. I feel this has been the case with SuperMarioMan.

FormerIP has repeatedly shown bias. I am not the only one pointing this out, as several well respected people are making the same claim. SuperMarioMan has come to FormerIP's defense even tho the case for bias appears very clear. He reported me instantly without taking even a brief moment to research what I wrote. I highly doubt that SuperMarioMan would be standing up for FormerIP if he didn't share his views on the article. In fact I have no doubt that SuperMarioMan would have already reported FormerIP for his actions if they disagreed with each other. That is where the problem lies. This behavior has been seen over and over again with this article. I have drawn these conclusions due to the simple fact that SuperMarioMan has ignored all personal attacks made by those who agree with him.

I don't think I am being a distraction to anyone by talking on my talk page so I will elaborate a little bit on why I asked SuperMarioMan the question I did. When I asked SuperMarioMan why he visited Candace Dempsey's page in the first place, he refused to answer. I know he isn't obligated to explain to me why he was there. If he went to her page to talk to Candace, he would have left her a message. It's obvious that he checked out her page simply to see if he could find anything in violation. He doesn't like the fact that Candace came here to defend herself so he jabbed at her a little. He fully complied with Wikipedia rules and he certainly did nothing wrong in that regard but he and I both know why he went to her page. He greeted me in the same fashion. He posted Wikipedia guidelines for me shortly after I arrived. When I pointed out that I was in full compliance with the rules he posted, he appeared to become angry.

Many good people have been banned by Wikipedia because of this article. Unfortunately that damage appears to be unrepairable. There is still hope that the issues with the current article can be corrected. If editors like FornerIP are allowed to continue to edit, the chances of success will be diminished.

Those working hard to bring this article up to Wikipedia's standards will still have to brush off some intentional distractions (such as being asked to prove this case is controversial), but that will not pose a major threat to success. Editors with extreme bias are the only threat that can possibly derail the effort.

I don't plan on being actively involved. I posted the comment yesterday because I felt it was important for people to know that the editor that has made the most edits on this article has shown himself to be biased. I am clearly an advocate, I understand the conflict and therefor make no attempt to edit. I would hope that someone would explain to FormerIP that he has shown himself to be an advocate also. That's only fair.

Lastly, I honestly feel that SuperMarioMan is the one that needs to let go. He doesn't like me, I get it. I find it unfortunate that he bases his feelings for me on my opinion of an article but who am I to suggest to anyone who they should or should not like. I am not angry and I have not lashed out at anyone. His accusation that I have been less than civil is unwarranted. Thank you for your time. BruceFisher (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Since enough words have been shoved into my mouth on this subject both here and at ANI, I will not indulge this tract any more than is really necessary. Bruce, although you are welcome to suggest that I am one of those editors who is "taking actions they may normally not take" (as much as I know that the insinuation is false), I must point out a couple of things. First, your post at the talk page, which called for FormerIP to step down from editing, was originally made without attribution in the form of a URL to the webpage in question. I honestly had no idea of the forum post to which you were referring until you added a link some time later. In fact, I am not familiar with any Meredith Kercher or Amanda Knox-related blog or forum. Second, regardless of the partisan atmosphere at the talk page and the presence or absence of attribution, it is simply not the proper venue to demand that a user cease their involvement in editing the article. As far as I know, FormerIP has never been so bold as to openly propose that of another user. That is what struck me the most - and, in light of it, it certainly is not "unwarranted" to suggest that the edit was "less than civil".

It's obvious that he checked out her page simply to see if he could find anything in violation. He doesn't like the fact that Candace came here to defend herself so he jabbed at her a little. He fully complied with Wikipedia rules and he certainly did nothing wrong in that regard but he and I both know why he went to her page.

If you can find a diff that actually proves all of the above (please note that I want proof as opposed to clever deduction), then please post it here for us all to see. Until this is done, I will continue to regard these three sentences and other remarks related to this issue as nothing more than baseless innuendo and lies. Furthermore, I'll have you know that it is not so much a case of me "refusing to answer" your question as a case of you failing to understand that I have nothing to answer for. I find it somewhat odd that CandaceDempsey has not actually voiced any of these concerns herself. SuperMarioMan 06:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

SuperMarioMan, I don't see any reason to continue this conversation. You have clearly become angry and I see no way for us to reach agreement. I made simple observations about your actions when Candace and I arrived. My words were my opinion and require no proof. Once again you have neglected to answer my question. I stated that you did nothing in violation of Wikipedia guidelines and you had no obligation to answer but I personally see no reason why you would avoid the simple question. Once again, just my opinion. I believe if you went to Candace's page to talk, you would have told me that already. I believe you avoid the question because you know why you went there. Dreamguy wrote a comment today regarding people needlessly showing up on user talk pages to bother people that disagree with them. He asked for that behavior to stop. I don't know why you think that it's odd that Candace has not commented on my observation. Can we stop the distraction? Can we focus on what's actually happening? You are a respected member of Wikipedia. Do you feel that FormerIP should be editing the Meredith Kercher article? BruceFisher (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not "angry", actually, just rather puzzled. I agree that continuing this conversation would be a pointless exercise for us both, and as such don't intend to make further posts here after this one unless there is good reason. You are free to conjecture as much as you like about the CandaceDempsey incident - as long as I have done "nothing in violation of Wikipedia guidelines", I have no concerns at all about impropriety. I'm not going to start commenting on who "should" be editing the article, and who shouldn't, because that isn't up to me to decide. There is no such thing as requiring "permission" to edit Wikipedia. As much as it is admirable of you to decide to abstain because of your personal views, so FormerIP has a perfect right to continue to do so even in spite of his off-wiki activities - if his edits demonstrate obvious bias, they may easily be reverted by anyone. I have yet to see firm evidence - in the form of diffs from edits at the article - that such a bias is compromising his abilities as an editor of the article. I now really have nothing more to add, consider this discussion closed (although you may of course respond to this message), and will not post here again. I am willing to draw a line at this point and attempt to carry on as before. Regards, SuperMarioMan 00:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The perfect gentlemen

It appears that you and Jimbo have a remarkable capacity to remain the "perfect gentlemen" in this complex, tangled situation. I will also try to remain calm, while the "war of the blogosphere" unfolds. One admin had already resigned on 25 January 2010, and Bluewave recently quit, so we wonder who's next. Over the past years, I have heard of numerous user meltdowns, and eventually, I witnessed one. It was a user who obsessively guarded articles about Bill Gates, to make sure no negative text remained. After several months, the growing mindset for power became too much, and he exploded and crashed in a "blaze of glory" ranting on numerous pages– it was so bad that at the point he was "retired" from Wikipedia, the admins had to erase (blank-out) his edits to keep the venom out of the database records. Wikipedia must be a marvelous fishbowl for psychiatrists working on Internet studies of psychopathic behavior. For that reason, we must be careful: a mugger does not stop if called a "mugger" and so talking to them does not work. A mugger sees other people as the weak prey who deserve to get what their weakness allows. It is a struggle of power games for them. So we remain cautious and build defensive lines. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Hello BruceFisher, you've already been warned, but please stop making personal attacks on editors you disagree with and remember to assume good faith! Comment on the contributions and not on the contributor; edits such as these [1], [2] and [3] are most inappropriate and, if you persevere, I'll report you to WP:ANI asking for an indefinite topic ban. Consider this your final warning. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know how this could possibly be my final warning when I have not been warned in the past? Do you only get one? Just curious. SuperMarioMan reported me once but the board appears to have sided with me. Is that the previous warning you are referring to? Can I see my previous warnings?

Well, from a cursory reading of the article's talk page and of SuperMarioMan's notes here and on WP:ANI, I saw you had been informed that your behaviour is inappropriate; if you didn't consider those suggestions as warnings, then let me rephrase: this is the only warning you're going to get from me before I report you... And I know that SuperMarioMan's report was not considered actionable, the last time; however, your editing pattern is, in my opinion, quickly starting to become disruptive, which might warrant a topic ban. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that my recent tone may sound disruptive and I will tone it down. I ask that you apply the same guidelines to other users. I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else could fail to see what is happening. Instead of warning those who take bold action without consensus, you are threatening to ban those who speak up when those actions are taken. I understand that my response may have been inappropriate but it does not change the fact that the action I was commenting on was wrong. I am asking you to please look at the actions that led to my comments. DreamGuy clearly saw the problem. He is a neutral voice that should have the support of others who are neutral. BruceFisher (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot and do not want to unilaterally block, as I'm an involved administrator, so you don't have to fear; and I'll warn anyone making personal attacks on anyone else, no matter what their position regarding Knox's innocence or guilt. SuperMarioMan's actions, on the other hand, did not violate any policy, at least from what I could see, because you do not have to have consensus to undo a bold change (addition or removal of content); consensus can be reached only at the end of the cycle bold, revert, discuss. That said, I'm really happy that you're willing to tone down! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This warning is crazy. How could someone propose an indefinite topic ban for those comments? We have editors outright attacking others personally, and harassing them in other ways, and this is what outside editors choose to focus on? I don't understand this at all. If these were edits were brought up on a Wikiquette Alert, the reaction would be "meh, you should try and comment on the edits a little more and on the editor a little less" with no suggested blocks. The idea that this could lead to an indefinite topic ban without intermediate steps seems crazy to me.LedRush (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Changing WP:RS policy to expand sources

Perhaps you can help to expand policy WP:RS to allow more sources. In the past, all blogs were banned, but now, some are allowed, such as news-agency blogs. I also am frustrated that Wikipedia currently has strong restrictions about some types of sources. The reason for some restrictions is to prevent self-promotion of products or people, such as "Product xx is the fastest, most-reliable to handle all user needs, as completely proven on their self-published website". Consequently, a self-published source can only be used for basic descriptive information, such as product size or features, but not claims of superior performance or award-winning status unless backed by independent reliable sources (such as an awards-organization website). However, I think it is permissible to state a website questions if the evidence was slanted, and to link to that website, without repeating the exact details of the accusation(s). To include that level of text, all that is needed is for the website (as a whole) to be mentioned in a reliable source about those accusations. Because you are the author of a related publication, then that should not be used IMHO, so that you could continue to offer advice without the article being seen as promoting your personal work. However, it is frustrating when a court foot-diagram shows over-wide ruler lines which tend to exclude a narrow-footed suspect, and there seems to be no way to mention such "doctoring" of evidence in a Wikipedia article. We need to change policies, somewhat, to allow broader coverage of subjects. Meanwhile, some people have really misused the WP policies, such as a claim that noting Mignini was convicted of judicial misconduct is, somehow, a WP:BLP violation while also concluding it is okay to claim other people sexually-assaulted a victim, during a re-trial where they are presumed innocent (else why re-try a guilty person). -Wikid77 23:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. In particular, comments like these are unnecessarily personalized and inappropriate. SuperMarioMan 03:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. The reason for your comment here is quite obvious. When administrators abuse their power it "damages the community." Is it any surprise that every person that has ever been banned from editing the Meredith Kercher article is someone that disagrees with the views of those doing the banning? It's not the Wikipedia policies that are causing the bans, it's the fact that those doing the banning have a different view of the Meredith Kercher case. That's a blatant abuse of power. BruceFisher (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe we call that confirmation bias. Another, more readily believable explanation is that the Knox-is-innocent editors are here not to contribute to a collaborative encyclopedia project but rather to focus on one article and one version of the truth. I see this all the time in the Middle east article area, where Jews and Palestinians alike come here to make sure their side is getting covered fairly, the other side is balanced, bla bla bla...sound familiar? People who cannot conduct themselves properly will get banned from the project; that most of the bans come from one "side" of an issue says more about that side's proponents than any "OMG evil admin" cries . Think about it. Tarc (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Explain to me why an administrator who has had nothing to do with the article in months came out of nowhere to block an editor? You act as if you have no side in this debate yet you are very well aware of the details surrounding the controversy. Your recent comments on Jimbo's talk page clearly show that you have taken a side. Attacks are seen on both sides on the talk pages and you are well aware of it. The attacks coming from your side are never disciplined. Wikipedia's format simply doesn't work for articles this highly controversial. If the people that were highly educated on the case came to Wikipedia 2 years ago and edited pages on basket weaving and crochet in order to build up their Wikipedia power then this would not be happening. They would then have the power to ban you for your attacks. Wikipedia is a great resource for many things. It's a shame that when articles are highly controversial, Wikipedia becomes a game. BruceFisher (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Explain to me why an administrator who has had nothing to do with the article in months came out of nowhere to block an editor? Because  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me (and to them too, it would appear). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Many others could have made the block. The fact that Black Kite came back to do it is highly suspect and appears to me to be symbolic. It was obvious that a block from Black Kite would make people angry and I have a feeling that was the intent. Now people like me are being accused of being sock puppets. I understand that the users that dedicate their lives to Wikipedia might not appreciate new users coming in but these veterans should welcome people that are educated on specific topics not just assume they are all advocates. Users with little to no knowledge of the Meredith Kercher case are banning others who have extensive knowledge. This makes very little sense and does nothing to build a credible encyclopedia. BruceFisher (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that another administrator, for the sake of transparency, has effectively "taken responsibility" for Black Kite's sanction by re-blocking RockSound. SuperMarioMan 15:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi BruceFisher. I noticed that you claimed that I had attacked other editors ("John and Tarc have repeatedly attacked other users" was the quote). Could you back that up with some evidence in the form of diffs, please? If you find you are unable to do this, I'd like you to withdraw the claim. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You are well aware of your tone on the Meredith Kercher talk page. If you need proof just go back and read your posts. I guess I am a member of the "for great justice" camp. It's nice to see you give us a name. If I call you Pro-guilt I get threatened with a block. You can come up with any names you like, no one will touch you. BruceFisher (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• LedRush had this to say about you John: "You label everyone who disagrees with you as being "not fairminded" or an "advocate". By attacking people in general terms and by personally attacking these editors who don't agree with you, you are poisoning the talk page" BruceFisher (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zlykinskyja. Thank you. TMCk (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What a joke!! BruceFisher (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Do not add comments unrelated to the SPI case on to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zlykinskyja. Twice now I have removed comments not pertaining to the case [4] [5]. The case was filed, a check was made, and the technical data found you to be unrelated. The matter is closed. If you have matters unrelated to the case to raise, raise them elsewhere. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My comments were related to the ridiculous claim made against me and should not have been deleted. Administrators should have seen what was happening. There was absolutely no suggestion that I was a sockpuppet yet the investigation was created. Why? Oh yeah, because I disagree with the administrator that keeps abusing his power to block users he doesn't like. Why not do some research instead of jumping to conclusions? BruceFisher (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

As I have said, if you wish to raise another issue (such as my removal of your comments not releveant to the case, which I will note is well within the rights of checkusers on SPI case pages) you may do so in another venue. Also, to address one specific comment, please note that nobody has "the right to talk" anywhere on Wikipedia; this includes you, me, and every other editor. Due to your accusatory tone and demeanour I will not comment further in this section. Thank you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Bye! BruceFisher (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What joke! Bruce gets unfairly accused of sockpuppetry based only on an editor's disagreement with his views, and Deskana accuses him of an accusatory tone? Simply absurd.LedRush (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

By "based only on an editor's disagreement with his views", are you perhaps referring to TMCk? Someone else made the connection to RockSound, and the clerk endorsed that user's request. TMCk simply posted notification here. Regardless, the SPI is now closed and the matter settled. SuperMarioMan 15:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I too am wondering who that editor with a different view is as it certainly wasn't me who filed against Bruce. TMCk (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• SuperMarioMan and TMCK both knew the accusation was ridiculous and both failed to show support for me. I imagine if my views were different on the Meredith Kercher article they both would have ran to my defense. TMCK may not have been the accuser but he was more than willing to run over here and post it up. Once again, all within the rules of Wikipedia, but the intent is glaring. BruceFisher (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. You are the one who doesn't want to be informed about things related to them. Maybe I'll remember next time not to give you the curtesy.TMCk (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• On another note, a quick visit to TMCK's talk page finds Pablo and SuperMarioMan. It's funny how you can organize against others right out in the open on Wikipedia and no one says a word. Pablo even created a hitlist. BruceFisher (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, "organizing" (or as we call it, "communicating") openly is at least accountable. Organizing off-line in secret (like on your blog, for example) is less accountable and less open. From our point of view (by "our" I mean those of us who are here to improve the project rather than push an agenda on one particular article), the former is preferable. Does that make sense to you? --John (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have proof that you gather as a group on Wikipedia, I would like to see proof of your accusation that I gather with others, either on Wikipedia or outside of Wikipedia, to work on the Wikipedia article. BruceFisher (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that you don't? If this is true then I congratulate you. It's for sure that off-wiki coordination is taking place; there's no other way to explain the influx of SPAs and socks on the article which has caused so much trouble. --John (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, this and this are somewhat indicative that you are not being honest in this claim. In a way, hats off to you for using your real name (if it is your real name), as that is a form of accountability, sort of. --John (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No offense John but your links above make no sense at all. How does promoting my book suggest that I gather with others off of Wikipedia to work on the Meredith Kercher article? The other link you posted was even more absurd. I know "I don't understand how you do business here" but you seem to have no problems with throwing around accusations just to see if something will stick. Prove that I gather off of Wikipedia to work on the article or give it a rest. BruceFisher (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Why is it so shocking that the Meredith Kercher article is getting attention? It's a highly controversial case. All of this SPA and sock talk is unsupported and ridiculous. BruceFisher (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Just the usual wishy-washy rant going on here. Not to be taken serious.TMCk (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Then there is really no reason for you to be here then, Bye. BruceFisher (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nice, Bruce. Is it really necessary to include at least one personal attack or claim of conspiracy in each and every one of your comments? Please tone it down. Incidentally, Pablo X's page is not a "hit list" - it is simply a list of single-purpose accounts, updated from time to time for monitoring purposes. SuperMarioMan 16:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please show examples of my posts instead of making a blanket statement. Pablo's list is a hitlist, you can call it whatever you want. BruceFisher (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. How about this - repeating the assertion that another user's subpage is a "hit list", when its purpose had already been explained to you? SuperMarioMan 16:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It was explained to me by someone that I disagree with. Thanks for your opinion. BruceFisher (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It sure looks like a hit-list. And this group attacking that SMM, TMCk and John engage in seems much more likely to be coordinated than the SPA's on the MoMK talk page, who can't seem to agree on anything. But why let facts get in the way of a conspiracy theory when you are attacking an editor who was unfairly attacked and was annoyed about it?LedRush (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency

So, Bruce, you are not interested in finding out our policies let alone following them, but at the same time you express strong opinions about how things ought to be run on our site. Can you explain the seeming inconsistency to me? I am having a hard time seeing how it is possible to hold both opinions simultaneously. Thanks, --John (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my comment. Maybe you don't know how I do things here. I said that I didn't need SuperMarioMan lecturing me daily on the rules. He seems to want to include a Wiki rule with every sentence he writes. It's not necessary. You are fueling the fire by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a sock or working offline. The Meredith Kercher article is highly controversial, bringing a lot of attention to the article. The attention is not due to any mass organized effort. Why not tone down the accusations? BruceFisher (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, that's a good and a witty reply. You seem like an intelligent guy and I can see from reading your blog that you are a committed person with good intentions. Honestly I couldn't care less what happens in that legal case you are concerned about; obviously I hope justice can be done but nothing can bring back the victim. I know very well that is a controversial article; I only got involved initially as an admin because of this article's regular appearances at our main dramafest but then got drawn into editing the article so now cannot take any admin action there. All I'm saying is that as an editor here for over five years and an admin for most of that time, and having made some of the same mistakes you are making in my early time here, I know very well that those of us who are invested in making this site the best it can be, get much more annoyed than positively influenced when we see folks like yourself well-meaningly get into these advocacy campaigns, and that long-term there are only three possible outcomes for an editor like yourself. You're going to do one of these three things:

1. Get tired of contributing and give up
2. Get banned and possibly then sock or go off-wiki and become an enemy, or both
3. Figure out how we work here and work with us to improve the project according to our three most important rules

It's a recognition of your intelligence and the possibility of you choosing option three that people give you hints by linking to our policies when they talk to you as a relative newbie, as I have indeed done in this message. If you find that insulting then you shouldn't. Its a compliment. Your future behavior while exercising the privilege of editing here will determine which option you wind up taking. I would counsel you to make wise choices along the way. I repeat that I have recused from any admin actions in respect of the MoMK article so whatever happens I will not be the one who blocks you. Please think about what I said; I was once where you are now, but I have also seen a lot of folks get booted from the site. I personally would much prefer that you take option three, as I see your talent and passion and the potential they give you to contribute here. Take care, --John (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you and others who have devoted tremendous amounts of time to Wikipedia have a hard time realizing that it's possible for an individual to show up at Wikipedia that is highly educated on one specific topic who has no interest in editing pages on comic books or vintage model trains. You should try to be less territorial and welcome new users that are educated in specific topics. Instead you hang a sign around their necks marking them as advocates or SPI's as if it's a horrible thing. Your tone on the Meredith Kercher article is just as, if not more, abrasive than mine, yet you claim to take no side. That doesn't seem to be honest to me. I know more about this case than anyone currently editing the article so it frustrates me that Wiki veterans bully editors that have knowledge on the case simply because they don't dedicate their lives to Wiki. Charlie Wilkes was blocked almost instantly from Wiki. He has vast knowledge of this case but he was wrongly thrown in a group accused of meatpuppetry and was banned. Time will eventually correct this article, until then it will remain an article of heated debate. I know how wiki works. You won't have to be the one to ban me, you can simply ask one of your friends. I have seen this happen repeatedly right out in the open on the talk pages. No one is going to take over Wikipedia so you don't need to be so defensive. It would be nice if you could drop the "I have Wiki power" attitude on the Meredith Kercher article and realize that others just might know quite a bit more about the topic than you do. You are so entrenched that you make it a point to disagree with every single point made by the group that you feel is "causing problems." It appears that you may not even realize that you have drawn such a strong line. I know it's wishful thinking but it would be nice if people would step back and realize that this is not about winning an online debate, it's about real people. BruceFisher (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In sending you this message I am recognizing that you are a real person. Wikipedia infamously isn't automatically very friendly to experts, having the "anyone can edit" ethos that it does. I know nothing of Charlie Wilkes. My side in this issue is Wikipedia's. SPAs and advocates aren't necessarily horrible but they are anathema to how we work here. I don't have any more wiki-power on this article than you do, and, just like you, I determine how seriously people take me or whether they take heed of me at all by my behavior. It's a very democratic medium, for good and for bad. I happen to believe it is far more good than bad. I know very little about the topic; what is the nature of your expertise? Didn't you write a book about the case at one point or was that someone else? If you don't like the term "advocate", how would you prefer to characterize your involvement? --John (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess that recognizing that I exist is a good start. Why are you so deeply involved with a topic that you know little about? It seems to me that you are more on a mission to swat away SPI's. I am not an expert, I founded Injustice in Perugia, a grassroots organization dedicated to helping two innocent people that have been wrongly convicted. We have a highly credible group of experts along with access to case files. I have also written a book on the case as you mention above. I don't pretend to be neutral and if you notice, I rarely edit the article. I am not "campaigning" (as you often say) for the article to read as I would like it to read. That would be an absurd position to take. I would like to see the article provide a neutral opinion of the events as they are currently playing out. News surrounding this case has changed drastically as time has gone by and the article should properly reflect those changes. The problem is that those who closely follow this case are not Wiki veterans so their arrival here has not been welcomed. Wikipedia veterans are very territorial and seem to think they need to defend sacred ground every time someone new shows up. The recent claims made against me that I am a sock looks to have been done in pure haste simply because I defended another SPI when they were accused of the same violation. It would be nice to see Wiki veterans like yourself lighten up a little bit and realize that no one is here to try and steal your bottle cap collection. New users are here to contribute to a topic that they are educated on. In real life some things are as simple as they appear. BruceFisher (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the sock claims against you, Bruce. I often get involved in articles that I am not expert in. It shouldn't matter as long as there are decent sources. We aren't a news source, so accuracy, fairness and stability are more important than keeping up-to-date. Wikipedia is more than a bottle cap collection. Being educated on a subject is fine; but the advantage is largely canceled out by the lack of neutrality. It's easier to find neutral folks prepared to read up on a subject than it is to tame the biases of those with a vested interest. --John (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a constant insult intended to make you retaliate so that they can ban you like they've done so many other people. Don't fall for the bait and choose option 3 despite John's attacks and SMM's condescension.LedRush (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Deskana. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You probably know which edit I am referring to - please don't do that again. SuperMarioMan 05:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm shocked that you were right there to police the page. You sure are speedy. The blatant organization seen right in front of everyone on the Wikipedia talk pages is absolutely ridiculous. Thanks for the warning. I'm sure that you would love to see me get blocked. That's the plan after all right? Just sweep away the "problems." Why Wikipedia thinks science fiction buffs are best suited to edit the Meredith Kercher article is beyond me. Hey, it's your playground and you own the ball. Maybe you can answer my question, Why isn't GiselleK [6] on Pablo's hit list? The user is clearly a SPA. I bet Pablo left that one off the list because GiselleK shares Pablo's opinions on the case. What do you think? BruceFisher (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, these guys make deliberately provocative and uncivil edits in order to induce others to make minor mistakes. When those mistakes occur, they block them. Your post was very accurate, but the insults about D&D were unnecessary. Be careful and remain civil. You can make your points without stooping to their levels.LedRush (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Unfortunately the current Wikipedia guidelines allow the behavior that we are witnessing. This behavior is bad for Wikipedia and the consequences will be seen down the road. My comments occasionally cross the line but nothing I say will change Wikipedia's current course. The Wiki veterans know this and I am sure it feels empowering for the time being. People that have absolutely no knowledge of the Meredith Kercher case, other than what Google tells them, are currently in full control of the article. This makes little sense. I look at the edit history for these users and most spend their time editing science fiction related articles or articles on model airplanes etc... Please don't get me wrong, I have nothing against hobbies and I think Wikipedia does an excellent job of providing information for those topics. As far as editing the Meredith Kercher article, these users are doing Wikipedia readers a disservice. Nothing I say will change it. BruceFisher (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"I bet Pablo left that one off the list because GiselleK shares Pablo's opinions on the case." Or perhaps he just missed it - there are quite a few SPAs, after all. Nevertheless, thanks for the tip-off - as you can see, I've updated the page. Any other accounts that you feel we should know about, please don't hesitate to get in touch. SuperMarioMan 05:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he just missed it, right. 100% of the users on the page created by Pablo all have the same views about the case. But I bet your right, that's just a coincidence. The fact that you support a list such as the one Pablo created is very telling. You guys also made a mistake labeling Candace Dempsey a sock but that's for another conversation. She has no interest in participating in Wiki after how she was treated here so it makes little difference. Your IP check software is not perfect but it's currently accepted by Wikipedia so it is what it is. You are too busy trying to dig a wider moat around the castle to realize that the people approaching the drawbridge are not coming to attack, but rather to help make your castle a better place. BruceFisher (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• I deleted SuperMarioMan's comment here because it was nothing more than an angry rant. Just because two people know each other in the real world doesn't mean they are socks. SuperMarioMan also posted a link to a forum that made a couple of comments regarding the Meredith Kercher article in an attempt to show organization outside of Wiki. I have to say that I am surprised at his childish attempt to prove his point. I ask that SuperMarioMan stop posting on my talk page. I prefer adult conversation. BruceFisher (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignore the warning, Bruce. I'm not offended by what you've said to me (though I completely disagree with it). I've asked SuperMarioMan not to give you such warnings in the future. LedRush speaks the truth, I think. I would ask that you try to work with me rather than against me, though. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to see Wikipedia veterans spend a little less time compiling lists of users and a little more time working on improving the article. The focus has clearly shifted from the article to the editors. BruceFisher (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Point of clarification

Sorry to bother you again. I know you don't like reading these things up, but SPIs are sock puppet investigations and SPAs are single purpose accounts. I've seen you mix them up a few times in your discourse and it isn't doing you any favors. I'm content that you are an SPA with good intentions who might become a useful contributor, but you are not likely to be a sock of anyone else, per your failed WP:SPI. Does that make sense? --John (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I was making that error on occasion. Thank you for the clarification. Nothing I say matters anyway. We both know that the current Wikipedia rules allow the Wikipedia veterans to maintain complete control over Wikipedia. I have no plans on editing articles on crochet, model airplanes, beanie babies, and many other wonderful hobbies that would miraculously turn me into a credible Wikipedia editor giving me the power to push out those I disagree with. Everyone knows how it works here. The structure is fine for hobbies and trivia, it fails miserably with articles of a serious nature such as the Meredith Kercher article. BruceFisher (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a group enterprise all right Bruce, and not all that friendly to experts. Have you read about Randy from Boise yet? It's an amusing illustration of the problem you are having. User:Tarc alluded to this one time in your regard. Unfortunately the area you are involving yourself in is particularly inaccessible to experts (obviously especially experts with a strong view on the subject) because it is a developing news story with legal implications for several living people. If only you had come here to improve our articles on crochet, you'd be having a lot less problems. However, I recommend you do what everybody who stays does, which is to accept that we are a collaborative project and work with us. Our expectations are mutable, but they lead to a power dynamic over time that is highly meritocratic, not democratic. This comes as a shock for some new users. I hope you can get through this phase of disgust and move forwards. I'd love to welcome you as a contributor on crochet or something. There must be something else that you could use your talents on, an obscure politician or a 19th-century tycoon or something? --John (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no other interest in Wikipedia. Users should not be expected to have interest in editing multiple topics. I find it interesting how you proudly highlight Wikipedia's flaws and ask all to accept them. Experts are not welcome. Do you honestly believe that articles are more accurately written by people with no knowledge on the subject and nothing more than Google to work with? That's the current system. I wouldn't care what Wikipedia did if the site didn't pop up as the number one source for every search engine online. There is no where to move forward. Feel free to continue to be proud of a system that allows misinformation to be presented to the public as truth. Don't mistake my posts as angry rants. I am well informed on what goes on here. I don't lash out in anger. I speak the truth. You know I speak the truth but you chose to ignore it. BruceFisher (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it, I am acknowledging it. You're (forgive me) like an 18-year-old coming up and saying "Politicians are corrupt! The system is imperfect! We must change it!" One challenges the teenager to come up with a credible way of effectively changing the system. One validates the frustration at the imperfection of an institution. But, like it or hate it, certain entities are here to stay, have considerable momentum, and will likely outlast our interest in and dissatisfaction with them. Examples include the FIFA World Cup, the U.S. Constitution, and Wikipedia itself. Out of all of these, I'd say Wikipedia is the most transparent and the most democratic (with certain reservations I noted above on the last point). Even so, one person or small group can do very little to change certain aspects of the way we work here. Like if I was thoroughly sick of all the candidates in the 2012 U.S. Election, I have the option of running myself, voting, or living in a shack in the woods, you have the option of joining our fight to make this great project happen, or not. I explained already the problems with being an "expert" on an area like this. We need fair-minded people who can read news sources, not experts with an ax to grind. See what you think. --John (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You continue to reinforce the fact that Wikipedia is not properly designed to handle articles like the Meredith Kercher article. What makes Wikipedia so dangerous is the fact that it's most often correct, leading people to believe that it's always correct. That's fine if you are reading about the Batmobile but completely unacceptable when reading about an ongoing murder trial. When it comes to the Meredith Kercher article, Wikipedia is not acting as an encyclopedia. It is more like a controlled media guide. You are asking me to come on board and help you move forward with a flawed concept. I really have no interest in helping you push misinformation out the public. As long as the current environment exists on the Meredith Kercher talk page, I doubt we will ever work together. Unfortunately the damage has been done. Too many personal attacks, hit lists, and out of control Wikipedia egos, have caused an environment that is impossible to work in. No worries though, your side holds the power so you win. Time will eventually correct the article and you will eventually see that you are on the wrong side of this discussion but I doubt you will care. You will justify it by saying that you were just going along with Wikipedia guidelines. For now the Meredith Kercher article remains an embarrassment to Wikipedia BruceFisher (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A tip, if I may

Hello Bruce. If I may offer a tip? Reading through the Meredith Kercher article talk page I note that you frequently make broad statements such as "Until then it will remain an embarrassment to Wikipedia". You are, of course, free to say such things. However in my opinion you weaken your argument by making such broad statements. Other people are unlikely to pay attention to them and if you instead were to focus on the specific topic about which you are talking, I think your points may have slightly more weight. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. This edit goes to far [7] I understand your frustration at the organization of editors, but you need to rise above that if you want your opinions heard.LedRush (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you but I am not sure there is a solution. I am confident that my opinions will be ignored regardless. Time is the only thing that will correct the Meredith Kercher article. I find it interesting that several editors have agreed with my opinion that Wikipedia is not well suited for an article of this nature, yet they spend a majority of their time on this very article, one they believe to be generally a bad idea. The true motives of people on Wikipedia will never be revealed but when editors try to claim that ABC should be considered "self published" I think it tells an awful lot about their true intentions. Thankfully others on their side disagreed. Maybe I should see that as progress. I guess I am not that optimistic. BruceFisher (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, I recommended that WP:SPS might apply...I didn't "claim that ABC should be considered 'self published'". I was answering LedRush's question, "Are there any rules about including this type of material in the bibliography?", in good faith. I haven't seen the book and that is apparent in my post. I have no idea what is presented or how it is presented. What do you perceive about my "true intentions"? ...and what "side" am I on?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, you should definitely see that as progress. The degree to which your voice will be heard or disregarded will depend on the quality and helpfulness of your contributions there, as is the case with me and anybody else. There are no "sides" here, other than a separation between those of us who contribute widely and those who have come here only to improve coverage of this one issue. However regrettable we might find that, it is I think an inevitable consequence of the social capital aspects and meritocratic tendencies of an on-line community such as this. The more we can overcome this separation and talk to each other as one human to another (as I am trying to do right now), the more effectively we can work together to improve the article. --John (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)