User:Night of the Big Wind mentioned that you made edits in messages written by others. You mentioned WP:VAND as a source to say that your revert was not vandalism. I tend to disagree. Why? Well read what it says on WP:VAND:
“
Talk page vandalism
Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.
”
Therefor I would like to stress out, that you should refrain yourself of making these kind of edits, as it shows a lack of respect.--Kind regards,Ro de Jong(Talk to me!)08:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
3. At any rate, as it can be read in the talk_page of JackKevorkian's article, I have exhibit reasons to reject those changes, reasons against its content/matter and not merely against its form and origin. So I feel compelled to believe that he is just taking the side of the sockpuppeter because he shares the same position pro-euthanasia of the sockpuppeteer and they do not doubt to use any mean to force their position.
Yes, Claudio. You have made clear that you don't want edits that conflict with your opinion. But under no circumstances you can edit or delete contributions from other editors from talkpages. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you think you're doing at Talk:Jack_Kevorkian but you need to take a second and review WP:VAND to learn what vandalism is. More specifically, calling an edit "vandalism" when it is not (repeatedly) can be considered a personal attack, and your actions in general today seem to be borderline hounding. Take a step back and remember that you are supposed to be contributing to an encyclopedia, not finding places to pick fights. --Shirik(Questions or Comments?) 19:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
In other words, take a moment to relax. If Shirik is in the mood for giving advice s/he might want to have a talk withUser:ClaudioSantos also. Xanthoxyl< 20:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I hope you make a chat to Claudio too. Unfortunately, I consider editing in someone elses contributions one of the most sneaky and treacherous forms of vandalisme... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of what you think of it, at least here, it is not vandalism by Wikipedia's definition of the word. So you should stop reverting it, calling it such.--Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I will call it in future: Agressive disrupting POV-editNight of the Big Wind (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with NotBW. One does not edit in messages that are not written by yourself.
If you would do that in mine, I would report you as well. No one appreciates that, it irritates people, and above all, it is a lack of respect. So my advise is, that when someone reverts your edit, then show respect, but better still, stop editing other peoples messages.--Kind regards, Ro de Jong(Talk to me!) 08:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.
”
I will place this on your talk page as well Shirik. --Kind regards, Ro de Jong(Talk to me!) 08:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
There is an explicit difference between blanking someone else's comments and removing content from a banned user.Sockpuppetry is unacceptable and cleaning up after those that abuse multiple accounts is appropriate.--Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
A vandal deleted some comments on the death of Kevorkian just because they were critic against him and this vandal even deleted the respective reference. But all the people cited in that section is precisely taken from that source (an article from Detroit Press) and if the source mention all those comments included the critic one deleted by the vandal, then whyUser:Night_of_the_Big_Wind is restoring the mutilated edition made by the vandal which is also an evation of his permanent block?--ClaudioSantos (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The alterations, whether they were good or bad, were not vandalism, and the user you are referring to presumably restored them because s/he thought they were a good idea. Please try to debate these changes on their merits. Xanthoxyl< 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The section on his death needs a cleanup. WP specifically forbids obituary-style death sections. Currently the section contains some nasty comments from unknown people, inserted by user ClaudioSantos. Comments? Jabbsworth (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The wrong infobox has been used in this article. JK is not famous as a criminal, but as a doctor/pathologist and campaigner on euthanasia. Using a "criminal" infobox is extremely POV. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Please leave these comments. They are signed by me, not by your enemue, Claudio! And stop editwarring! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The comments you took from Ned McGrath out of the Detroit Free Press is a typical case of you cherry picking. There are several other comments about his passing away that are neutral or pro, so way do you just take a starch anti? If you want to add a comment out of the DFP, it is far better to take the comment of Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano or Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper.
About the infobox: Kevorkian was a physician who gained notoriety because of his medical work. That this work was in conflict with the law, does not make him automatically a criminal. He was a physician in conflict with the law, not a criminal who worked as physician. I do not judge Kevorkian, as I do not know why his patients came to him. Unbearable suffering is difficult to measure.
The removal of the legacy section is 100% POV. The section states what the effect was of his work and trial. They praise him for raising awareness of the difficult and controversial subject of suicide, assisted suicide and unbearable suffering. And that is true. We know about his work, due to his work and trial. Otherwise it was probably still a hidden issue, conducted in total secrecy.
1. I did not delete any comment favouring Kevorkian like the one from the judge Thomas Jackson, although I certainly do not agree with their comments. The previous version included just that comment favouring Kevorkian and you were not worry about that blatantly POV.
2. It is well deocumented that Kevorkian was found guilty and condemned to prison because of murder. He was found guilty and condemned for a crime, so he was found to be a criminal. That is a fact. Your opinions about that are irrelevant here in WP and would be WP:OR
3. As you also said, he gained notoriety because of his trial and condemn for murder, and it is 100% POV to remove out the infobox any mention to his trial and condemn because of murder, but that is exactly what you are doing restoring the infobox which was added by a vandal evading his permanent block. I do not the prupose but this infobox also includes a sort of jokes like "Euthanasia medicine" as an specialism of that profession, or perhaps it is not a sarcasm but a fact if it is suggesting that there only exists an "euthanasia medicine" and nothing else.
4. I believe that you are editing warring, as you insists in restore the comments and editions made by a vandal evading his permanent block, precisely imposed to forbidd any edition coming from him, but a block that is being circumvent with your help. It took 3 reverts restporing the vandal editions before you let yourself to come and write here in the discuss page, where you had to discuss first as I expresively asked.
@1: I don't have a clue where you are talking about.
@2: He was in the first place a physician. We shoukld respect the neutrality of the case, and then the medical infobox prevails.
@3: Nonsense.
@4: Yep, I have informed them of your 7 reverts, 2 edits in my texts, your sockpuppet-history, our earlier clashed due to your POV-pushing and your three blocks due to editwarring and disruptive editing!
2: Yes he was a physician and he was also a murderer, a criminal. Nothing new under the sun. In my editions I have never hide that Kevorkian was a medical doctor but actually you are the one trying to hide that he was also a murderer.
4: Well, I should reported you as it seems you are harassing me. But certainly I have reported your continuous vandalism by restoring the edits made by a permanently blocked account. My revertions of those editions made by a vandal evading his expulsion, those are all legitimate revertings. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
You have to debate changes on their merits. If another editor likes the changes, the fact that they were originally made by a sockpuppet does not automatically mean that you are entitled to revert them if restored by a different user.Xanthoxyl< 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
As it can be read above, I have exhibit reasons to reject those changes, reasons against its content/matter and not merely against its form and origin. But what you are proposing User:Xanthoxyl, namely to merely consider the content but to forget the illegitimate and disruptive origin of those changes, it seems a form to help a sockpuppeteer to circumvent his block and to evade the WP-rules. To evade a block using sockpuppets is considered a serious disruption and a serious breach against WP community trust. This sockpuppeteer has evaded his block at least 6 times using sockpuppets to fake and to deceive, in order to push his agenda pro-euthanasia. But you User:Xanthoxyl are still being so permissive with that, claiming to consider the merit of his disruptive editions and to restore them. For a change, because I've reverted those sockpuppets, youUser:Xanthoxyl promptly reported me at the ANI to push blocks against me. Obviously you are likely to be so strict appealing to WP-rules against me, but you are absolutely lax with the sockpuppet and his breaching of the same rules; perhaps the reason is that you are also pro-euthanasia, which is clearly the agenda of that permanently blocked sockpuppeteer. Therefore, I just will quote the WP policy: "The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. It is likely to lead to a block of all affected accounts, a ban of the user behind the accounts, and on-project exposure of all accounts and IPs used across Wikipedia and its sister projects, as well as the (potential) public exposure of any "real-world" activities or personal information deemed relevant to preventing future sock puppetry." from Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry. All my message also applies to you Night of the Big Wind. -- ClaudioSantos¿?21:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
That still do not give you the right to make changes to contributions from other editors. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
You are simply trying to use the rules against sockpuppets as a way to overrideconsensus. If a different user seriously disagrees with your edits, you must debate the issue with them. You do not get an automatic pass to revert theiractions. And please read WP:ACTIVISM. Xanthoxyl< 08:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
You are simply using any mean to force your point of view pro-euthanasia. That is what you call consensus. -- ClaudioSantos¿?19:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not customary to purge comments by sock-puppets unless they were very disruptive. Also, review WP:ACTIVISM and WP:ADVOCACY. Xanthoxyl< 16:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. For sure the comments of a person who has been using 6 sockpuppets to repeteadly back here to evade his block is clearly disruptive. Reverting that sort of disruptive vandalism is not 3RR. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Even then, you should NOT edit in someone elses contributions. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong: I am being too gentle as I am not deleting those comments by that disruptive vandal, but I am just strikingthrough them. WP policies recommend to delete any sort of disruptive vandalism, as it is when someone actively backs time to time, using up to 6 sockpuppets, to evade his block. -- ClaudioSantos¿?, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Block evasion is not the same as vandalism, and this kind of talkpage monkeying is confusing and not wanted. So you can save yourself the effort in future. Thank you.Xanthoxyl< 17:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Repeatedly evation of block is vandalism. Repeatedly sockpuppetry to evade a block, to fake and deceive is considered to be a serious breach against WP community trust. And there is also a respective 3RR Exemption: "Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts." fromWikipedia:3rr#3RR_exemptions. -- ClaudioSantos¿?17:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Jack Kevorkian. Your edits appear to constitutevandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Editing in someone elses contributions.Night of the Big Wind (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism is not reverting actions made by a sockpuppet account being used to evade a block.[8] -- ClaudioSantos¿?18:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Action T4. Your edits appear to constitutevandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. editing in someone elses contributions.Night of the Big Wind (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not vandalism when the warning is being missused. You wrongfully warned me of vandalism because I was reverting the actions made by an expulsed sockpuppeter evading his block, as he continuously used to do, even using up to 6 sockpuppets; reverting an evation of block is not vandalism but a legitimate action. Your warning is wrong and I am allowed to revert it. -- ClaudioSantos¿?19:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported forViolation of the Edit warring policy at theAdministrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on thenoticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 16:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)
If you can not get an article in the shape you want it, you nominate it for deletion. And of course, the speedy deletion of Suicide bag is denied. Nice try. But I admit that I was wrong at that point. I thought that Helios was out of business after the raid, but that was Gland. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Page:Jack Kevorkian(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported:ClaudioSantos(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)
It is a nice way of distracting the administrators of the real case: editwarring and POV-pushing of ClaudioSantos. If have asked him to stop editwarring[9]. I have never got a warning on my personal talkpage or on the talkpage of the article. Normally I ignore enit-comments, as I do not regard them as real discussion.
We have had clashes before, due to his persitent POV-pushing against euthanesia and everything related. I have reported him earlier at [20] but due to his habit of near monthly visits, this case bleeded to death.
His effort in "prosecuting" sockpuppeteers is alright, but also a bit remarkable. ClaudioSantos has also used a sockpuppet for POV-pushing and block-evading ([21])
Ow, and Claudio is already three times blocked for editwarring. ([22])
I wish the administrator on duty much wisdom in solving this case! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
My revertions were legitimate revertions as I was reverting and deleting editions considered vandalism because they were editions made byJabbsworthwho is an expulsed sockpuppet evading his block, and I expresively tagged my editions mentioning that[24][25]. Here the case is, as it was documented above, that: User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind is continuously restoring the editions added few days ago by the well known expulsed vandal. Thus User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind is restoring the editions made few days ago by that expulsed vandal[26][27] who is evading again his permanent block as he uses to do regulary[28]. The doings of User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind is a way to circumvent the block of that expulsed vandal, a sort of vandalism and should be stopped by an admin.
2. Now he is again here mentioning that closed SPI case and accusing me of evading a block that I have never evaded.
3. User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind also promptly mentioned here my blocks because 3RR. But what he omits to mention is that certainly two of the three blocks I have received because of edit warring, they were the result of reverting the editions made by the sockpuppets of the same mentioned expulsed vandal. For example see the history ([29][30]) of the editions made by the mentioned expulsed sockpuppets TickleMeisterandOzOke, before the dates (29.12.2010and3.5.2011) of my blocks because of 3RR .
4. Actually the expulsed vandal, that certainly I have reverted more than 3 times, for which I have got those blocks, that vandal was using more than 5 sockpupets to evade his block as it was confirmed here[31]!!!.
5. Those are the terrible blocks mentioned here by User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind in order to induce a bad environement against me.
6. But here the case is, as it was documented above, that:User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind is continuously restoring the editions added few day ago by the same expulsed vandal now using the sockpuppet User:Jabbsworth. Thus restoring the editions made few days ago by the same expulsed vandal evading again his permanent block[32][33]. Will I get another block because of reverting a proven vandal who was already expulsed again?
7. Therefore, my revertions were legitimate revertions as I was reverting editions considered vandalism because they were editions made by that sockpuppet evading his block, and I expresively tagged my editions mentioning that[34][35] once that sockpuppet was blocked.
8. User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind knows that but it seems he aligns with the vandal and against me because the vandal is pro-euthanasia like him.
9. But the doing of User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind, who is restoring editions made by a vandal evading his block, is a way to circumvent that block, a sort of vandalism and should be stopped by an admin. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I do my own edits. If I want to sign my name under an edit that was originally from a sockpuppet, it will become my edit. I know you want those edits removed, because it does not suit your starch anti-euthanesia Point Of View. And keep your personal attacks at home, please. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Result. Response from admin
Page protected by another admin. Next time, please try to use the template provided in the directions when submitting reports on this noticeboard so that your request can be handled expediently. --slakr\ talk / 05:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Your addition to the legacy of Jack Kevorkian is okay. Indeed more balanced now. His work was controversial, so it is alright to show this. Thanks. Night of the Big Windtalk 23:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
You added also already several texts or infoboxes to depict him as a criminal and murderer. And doing that is also POV-pushing. It is clearly stated in the text that he is a convicted physician, not a hopeless murderer (remember that he didn't kill his patients himself, but that he "only" gave advice, medication and equipment to kill themselve). Night of the Big Windtalk 02:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Whatever NotBW believes about the law is irrelevant. The one who commits a crime is a criminal. Murder is a crime and certanly assisting suicide is also a crime, but the last is not the case here. Here the thing is: the one who commits a murder is a murderer. Dr.Jack Kevorkian was convicted because he murdered a patient by injecting to him a lethal injection, Dr.Kevorkian video-recorded the murder and send it to the T.V to be broadcasted as it was.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you please discuss your changes on the talk page rather than just edit warring to reinsert them? The dispute seems to go back a ways, and ending up with just fighting back and forth on the article without efforts to discuss it on the talk page in good faith are not Wikipedia's way.
Howdy,
RE. This, [44] "Michael O’Meara (2011). AN ADOPTEES RESPONSE The removal & sterilization program of the Illegitimates in the 1960’s and 1970’s associated with the Colonies Racial decay policy in published historical aspects - Submission into the Senate Inquiry - Commonwealth contribution to former forced adoption policies and practices"
I can't find any information about a publisher at the link. Did this have any editorial oversight? Was it published under a different name?
Thanks CS, V7-sport (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This personal testimony is about Australia. What is its use in an article about the USA? And without any pagenumbers it is quite useless as a source. Night of the Big Windtalk 12:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The page is provided (p.17). The paragraph is almost literally taken form that source and is referring to the U.S. That is not merely a personal testimony but an study (submission) made by that author for and inquiry from the Australian Senate[45]. It seems the publisher is the own Sentate of Australia as it is published at their web site[46]. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but this source is useless. As you can see it is covered by endnote no. 55. But endnote 55 reads: 55 Eugenics in the United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics in the United States' The writer is citing this article... Night of the Big Windtalk 17:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, It's appears to be a submission made by Michael O’Meara to the Parliament of Australia and entered into record in the senate. It hasn't had any editorial oversight and O’Meara's only expertise on the subject of eugenics in the USA seems to be that he was adopted in Australia. Further, as Night of the Big Wind points out, it's sourced back to Wikipedia, which isn't a reliable source. Do you object to this sources removal? Thanks CS, V7-sport (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I already took it out. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I should have checked that first, thanks, all best. V7-sport (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
You have not contributed with nothing in the discuss page but just came here to delete.[edit]
Come on, Claudio, this is not a reason to start an editwar. Everybody can contribute on this article, participating or not participating on the talkpage. By know I have enough of it. The next time you add some of your POV or remove something that is inconvinient for you, I am gonna report you to get a topic ban for you! Night of the Big Windtalk 18:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The mistake you make with this article is that Kevorkian did not gained his "fame" due to the coutcase that got him convicted, but through the four failed courtcases before that. He was already widely known before he got convicted. You can see that in the paragraph Trials.
By now you have three reverts in the last 24 hours. One more, and you will be reported for editwarring. You are warned now... Night of the Big Windtalk 01:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually - both of you were clearly edit warring and over the 3RR limit on the Kevorkian article. Both accounts are blocked for 24 hrs for violating 3RR, and I have full-protected the article for 3 days.
Good faith discussion on talk pages is mandatory. Edit warring is not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
He appealed his block to ArbCom--we agreed to an unblock provided he edited solely from one account of his choosing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Re your talk page posting, he's free to edit wherever he wishes—if he edits disruptively and/or abuses multiple accounts again he can be reblocked. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Just so you and other administrators know, I thought I was being generous on the block time. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.
Hmmm, Claudio. Most administrators also look at the blocklog before deciding on the term. Night of the Big Windtalk 20:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, Jabbsworth has more blocks than me if you account all the blocks of his sockpuppets. Even leaving aside the block of sockpuppetry and accounting just the block due edit warring of all his sockpuppets. And I repeat, I was not editing Exit International, I did not violated the 3RR, and I was very busy at the talk page of Euthanasia as you know. Actually you were the one being reverted the last hours by jabbsworth not me.-- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not involved in the blocks. I only requested page protection because blocking seemed useless to me. Night of the Big Windtalk 21:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
And I was absolutely not involved in that. I have stoped any edit there more than 32 hours ago, precisely to avoid any edit war. ClaudioSantos¿? 21:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed my comment from a discussion page earlier today, it was to public. A decade ago NHS Doctors in England called my family to meet them with a view to switching off my life support, they said it as it may have brain damage. My family refused, thank god, but looking at that it was euthanazia and it is common practice in English NHS hospitals. As I am typing and edit wikipedia it should be clear the doctors motives seem to me suspect. Thanks for your message. I cannot see even now how they could have justified the switch off, given I was alive, but they did propose it seeking my families consent. I think I could have been the victim of manslaughter, but who could have proved it. If Wikipedia can accept an affidavit sworn on oath I would be willing to publish the facts of my case as an example to warn others where the system has already headed.--Hemshaw (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I was horrified by that text too. Unfortunately I know first hand what it is (and how scary it is) to be close to death. I recovered completely, I sincerely hope you did too!
Have you ever filed a complaint against the physicians of that hospital? This seems to me a severe case of errors and misjudgements by the physicians.
By the way, I have no clue if this is non-voluntary suicide, murder or manslaughter due to misjudgment. How quickly were the physicians asking for the switch off?
Just read the story Claudio sent you. Shocking! Luckily, in Holland physicians don't have the last word in cases like this. Parents, social workers, and two separate physicians or -teams have to agree with it, even with the very strict script that the physicians have to follow. Night of the Big Windtalk 01:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to question if one really can trust on that alleged controls. It is a question of life and death. I will return to this later. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Problem is that no matter how you do it, by law, script or otherwise, there will be a grey area. You can only try to make that area as small as possible, but you can not wipe it out... Night of the Big Windtalk 13:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Look, I have a proposal for you. If you agree not to edit the euth. articles, I will do the same. I've looked into the abilities of editor Bilby, and he has years of university-level training in Ethics and has read extensively in this area. We can still make arguments to him on the Talk pages. He is not pro- or anti-euthanasia, he has no particular bias on the topic (I thought he was a Christian crusader but he says not). We can still be involved — we can sway him with good logic on Talk. This will stop edit wars and return some calm to the Project in this space. How does that sound? (This proposal does not include articles related to Exit or the suicide bag, but I believe you have already stopped editing those). ¿Estamos de acuerdo? Jabbsworth (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, if you say "X is one of the most respected scholars in field Y" on a talk page, but you don't provide a source to back it up, I'm not going to accept your claim. Jesanj (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You should do your homework and look at the sources which I referenced very well. I have referenced their scholar works which are reliable sources published by reliable editorials, thus reliable according to the wikipedia standars. Theer are a lot of pages all around the web including the own wikipedia dealing about those authors. Are you providing something which demosntrate they are not reliable and well known auhtors on the topic? then what is your proof? Your own doubts? Please, in similar cases you must bring here more than your words as I am a very busy. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm not taking a position on the authority of any academic. I don't know who is respected and who is not. I just want to let you know that I like to see reliable sources describe academics as leaders in their field. I'm just letting you know that I'm not going to take your word for it. That's all. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
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. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, added some information there to give some clarification about your own role in it, Jabbsworth. Night of the Big Windtalk 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
ClaudioSantos, do you think it is neutral for Wikipedia to have a sentence that says this: "Action T4, which was a euthanasia program in Nazi Germany, ..."? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Proposed topic and interaction ban at WP:ANI[edit]
FYI - I have proposed to topic ban both you and Jabbsworth from the topic of Euthanasia and from interacting with each other, for three months. The discussion is on WP:ANI at here.
Final warning (echoing ANI comment) - ongoing disruption and personal attacks all over, but including ANI and the Jenne AFD, will not be tolerated any further. One or both of you will be blocked if this keeps up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
No, that is not acceptable either - per WP:OUTING, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information." I'll inform him of his double standards...regards, GiantSnowman 00:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
There is already a (very lengthy) discussion at WP:ANI, it would be best to keep the discussion in one place, and raise any issues you have there. Regards, GiantSnowman 00:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Just consider my comment as a quite long invitation to precisely keep the thing at the ANI as dispersing the thing is also a way to avoid(evade) that other users get a complete picture of the thing. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this is a notification that the topic and interaction ban as placed at ANI has been enacted, as is supported by the community. The ban is formally logged here and is in effect until November 1, 2011. The full text of the ban is as follows:
ClaudioSantos is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed, and banned from interacting with Jabbsworth, broadly construed, for a period of three months. Any checkuser-verified sockpuppetry used to evade the ban during the ban period will result in a six-month editing block. ClaudioSantos may make minimal reports to uninvolved administrators should they observe a topic ban violation by Jabbsworth that is not responded to, 24 hrs after the violation and in absence of any administrator reaction, but may not discuss it further after notifying of the diff and the applicable ban.
Dear Claudio. Just a bit of a friendly warning. As you are topic banned from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed editing in Planned Parenthood is close to the line. I don't know if it falls under "broadly construed" but be cautious at this point. Better check it out if it is off limits or not, to prevent "accidents". Night of the Big Windtalk 14:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
There is some discussion of that very question (initiated by me) at User talk:Atama. MastCellTalk 17:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
