The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Warned, see below. Thatcher 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

70.109.223.188 (talk · contribs) has been making reverts, a due number of them improper ones, on articles where the IP has not made edits or discussions.

• "no comment - [1].
• "revert vandalism by troll account" - [2].
• "rv trolling" - [3].
• no comment - [4].
• no comment - [5].
• no comment - [6].
• rv pov - [7].
• rv - [8].
• no comment - [9].
• no comment - [10].
• no comment - [11].
• no comment - [12].
• sorry for not using edit summary, these are not needed - [13].
• no comment - [14].
• revert per talk - [15].
• Extra note: He's also removed a source because "it's foreign language" - [16].

Many of the reverts have been on me when the IP was not involved; the last "revert per talk" [17] being in disruption to an 'on hold' mediation where Pedrito took time off:

• "Due to work and other reasons, I'll be off-line until February 18th." - [18].

I've inserted the material into the article adding references by Der Spiegel, United States House of Representatives and Reuters; Diff and was reverted by Pedro: [19] and then reverted a second time by the IP.

I believe 70.109.223.188 (talk · contribs) is some type of a ban/mentorship evasion account used to edit war where the editor wished to remain incognito.

The IP has been disrupting the 'Editorial Process' and I am requesting:

• A checkuser on the anon; to see if his IP corresponds with another editor or if it's similar (same ISP) to any of the IPs of the involved editors.

With respect. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser's won't necessarily be perusing this board, so if you have substantive evidence that this IP might be Pedrito, you might want to file a request at WP:RFCU. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one of them does. Thatcher 19:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you'd show up now! Here's a link to the ARBCOM case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Please link to the case, it makes our work easier. 2. IP addresses may change and the case was not closed until recently, so stick to recent diffs. 3. I can see who this is and it is definitely not Pedro or any of the other parties named in the case. 4. Logging in to edit is not required, can you show a pattern of edits or reversions that we can use to put this user on notice of the case? Thatcher 19:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, I linked to the relevant section of the case (Decorum Principals), sorry if it was not clear enough. The case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.

My prime suspect for the IP was listed here - Statement_by_Jaakobou. I've sent a request to a clerk to add the names but was noted that it's probably redundant since the case will be a generic thing and not a per-user thing. Regardless, each of the mentioned names (anon. IP included on the list) are parties of I-P disputes and conflicts. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, first off, the IP editor is not someone listed in your statement. There is not enough evidence of disruption to justify giving his account names, but I will certainly warn him about the case, and warn him that if he ends up getting blocked or placed on restriction, it will apply to his named accounts as well. Thatcher 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

The sock has been blocked. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion that the new user matthewsanchez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might be now-banned and blocked Matt Sanchez, based on its one (unsigned) contribution here. I realise it isn't a mainspace edit, but still thought that it should probably be blocked on principle. Jay*Jay (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ArbCom remedy here. The pages of the ArbCom case plus other on-wiki discussions established that user:Bluemarine is Matt Sanchez, and so is user:Mattsanchez. Both are banned, and the link on user talk:Mattsanchez regarind that ban redirects to user talk:bluemarine. Jay*Jay (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The identity is pretty obvious. However, the one edit the new account made seems benign enough. While technically a breach of the ban, I don't see any need for further action here, apart from the obvious reblock that has already been done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason for the breach is to influence the images used on the Matt Sanchez article page. Give a mouse a cookie... Jay*Jay (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see nothing wrong with a single, polite, reasonable request regarding a personal photograph. Formally speaking, he should perhaps have done it through OTRS rather than on wiki, but that's a minor point. What action do you want taken? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not specifically request a remedy because I was unsure how seriously this action by Matt would be seen; thus, I simply made a report, and provided the evidence to support it. If you are asking what I would do were I an admin, I would issue an indefinite block, because his action is unacceptable on principle, provided I was confident that I could establish it must indeed be him. I would then log the breach on the relevant ArbCom page. I suspect that creating a sock puppet within days of the ArbCom decision would not be viewed positively by the committee. By the way, it is evident that I see this situation as more serious than do you (fair enough - the world would be boring if we all agreed all the time). FYI, I see it as important because Matt's actions are clearly aimed at changing the content of his article. He has already managed to have the previous photo deleted, based on what appears to be a highly suspect claim of ownership. Matt's wiki-actions and the case that followed have consumed a lot of wiki-time, and resulted in a concurrent indefinite community ban and a one year ArbCom ban. In such a case, any sock puppet - no matter how minor its edits - should be banned. As a non-admin, I have no power to act, so I have raised the issue for others to consider in what I believe is the appropriate forum. It is now up to others to consider the evidence, make a decision, and take whatever further action they deem is appropriate. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, fair enough. But here's one remaining difference of opinion: Matt is entitled to wanting to influence his article. It's his biography. Article subjects, even when banned, are still protected by BLP and have a right to have their voice heard when BLP problems occur. Being concerned about privacy or security issues over an image is a legitimate thing to raise. Even if the proper channel would be OTRS rather than sock editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree completely that Matt is fully protected by BLP, and believe that this is entirely appropriate. However, it seems clear that Matt wants his article to be under his control. First he tried to edit the article to his liking. Then, when it became evident he was going to be banned, he asked that the article be deleted. Now he wants a nice "military" style image (my description, not his) like this - and his suggestion is not about privacy or security (as you characterise it), but about influencing the impression created by a cursory look at the WP article. Ignoring the copyright issues and just thinking about NPOV, the image Matt suggests is inappropriate in the same way as would be one of the "action" photos from his gay porn career. By the way, he has claimed ownership of images which he does not own - including this one. A more neutral image (like the Columbia one that was removed) would be appropriate. In short, Matt's past actions make his objectivity in influencing the Matt Sanchez article questionable, and mean his suggestions require very carefully scrutiny. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There's nothing wrong with him trying to exert some control over what images we show. Since he is mostly a private, not-really-all-that-prominent person, there won't be too many potentially free images of him around that are owned by others. Most existing photographs will indeed be his. So, we are entirely at his mercy when it comes to him giving us photographs of himself. As for the deleted image [[20], I can't check its history (not being a commons admin). I have currently no reasons to believe there was any foul play in either his uploading it or in his later having it deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidence of notification on user page here. Jay*Jay (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, for everyone's information, Luna Santin has now instituted an indefinite block of user:matthewsanchez. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Is That All There Is? Thatcher 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Martinphi restricted Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages.

I would like to call the attention of uninvolved administrators to this particularly provocative comment: [21] where he lectures another Wikipedian who has been around for a long time with some pretty harsh language:

"This is not valid for Wikipedia. Your arguments are completely your POV, and have nothing to do with WP policy. Thus, they are not valid here."

I think this is disruptive. Does anyone else? I'll also point out that this particular page is subject to a probation, and so that he would engage in this behavior is especially disturbing.

Please also note that I'm not the only one who has noticed Martin's disruptive tendencies at homeopathy.

ScienceApologist (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors were rejecting the National Institutes of Health the American Medical Association and the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education as being POV sources for Homeopathy. They were doing this because "A government agency is a political creature." and because "Generalisations are generally bogus" and "Organizations that use the scientific method to evaluate claims all reject homeopathy," the last as if the NIH, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, and AMA don't use the scientific method. Looks like just their POV to me, and under such circumstances not a harsh criticism. I have recieved no complaints from said editors, but certainly intended no personal offense. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all? Thatcher 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tu quoque[edit]

Please consider that just minutes earlier, ScienceApologist - who is under similar restrictions as MartinPhi - called another editor a "POV Pusher". Thus, he's probably not the best person to be reporting anyone for behavioral issues, especially MartinPhi. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I am under civility restrictions, not disruptive editing restrictions. Secondly, I was reverting creationist POV-pushing. I have no reason to believe that the editor in question is a POV-pusher. Regardless, I cannot refactor edit summaries and so apologize. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And when you accused me of POV-pushing what, exactly, was the point of view that you believed me to be pushing with this edit? Dlabtot (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Edit warring on the enforcement page is a really really bad idea. I will look at this report tonight at home. Thatcher 20:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported User:Dlabtot here: WP:ANI#Continued harassment; User:Levine2112 is also wearing down my patience, but one thing at a time. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all? I find myself unmoved to take action on either complaint. More hangnails. On the content question which prompted Martin's outburst, both he and the other editors are partly right. The AMA and NIH do say some nice-ish things about homeopathy, and web sites written for consumer use are rarely scientifically rigorous. There is nothing particularly disruptive about the quoted comment. And ScienceApologist did not say "POV pusher" as quoted above, he said "rv creationist POV pushing" which is a slight but subtle difference (although avoidance of the word "pushing" would have helped. Dlabtot and Levine2112 parachuting into the middle of this was thoroughly unhelpful, as was Dlabtot and ScienceApologist edit warring on this page. The admins who cover this page are not potted plants and do a pretty good job of separating the wheat from the chaff. The block of Dlabtot and ScienceApologist seems well-deserved, no action on these hangnails. Thatcher 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

An arbitrator has clarified that this is only limited to episode-related articles, and shouldn't be taken to implicitly apply to other areas. [22] Dmcdevit·t 19:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has begun to unilaterally blank entire sections and paragraphs of other articles in an apparent attempt to thwart the purpose of the injunction -- see [23] and [24], for example. John254 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did not violate the injunction, as the injunction only prohibits (un)redirection/(un)deletion. The various loopholes and problems with the injunction were brought up in the talk page, but as it was never amended, apparently the arbitrators were happy with the specific wording, which TTN did not violate. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An injunction which forbids any editor to "redirect or delete any currently existing article" necessary includes a prohibition on attempting to achieve the same effect by unilateral blanking of large portions of article content -- otherwise, TTN could simply stub all episode and character articles. Pursuant to the policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, the injunction should be enforced for its intended purpose of preventing edit warring over the inclusion of episode and character content -- TTN should hardly be rewarded for inventing a method to (possibly) adhere to the letter of the injunction while circumventing it. John254 05:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love the good faith going on here. It's called cleanup. Removing cruft from game related articles is something that is done all of the time, and I'm sure if you ask WP:CVG, not one person there would disagree with the removal of the information on that list. If you look at the edit history, you can see that I was already in the middle of it anyways. The other two are also basic cleanup/information rearrangement. That has nothing to do with trying to bypass the injunction. TTN (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling material "cruft" is not assuming good faith about the editors who added the material. If the article really needs to be cleaned up, someone who is not an involved party in an ongoing arbitration case can do it. --Pixelface (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the removals of content are contentious -- the blanking of most of the content from List of Wario characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was partially reversed, for example. Now, I imagine that if there's a serious dispute as to whether individual characters deserve their own articles, many editors are going to be rather displeased with the unilateral removal of a large number of entries from List of Wario characters. John254 05:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you explain how any of this involves a episode of a television show or a character from a television show? That's all the injunction pertains to. Different kinds of behaviour with respect to a different class of article.Kww (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather hairsplitting distinction, since TTN has recently been edit warring over the redirection of articles related to video games -- see [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. The purpose of the injunction is presumably to actually stop the edit warring, not to move it to a slightly different set of closely related articles. John254 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discus.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should protect some of these articles based on basic wiki edit warring rules. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That will be protecting every article on fiction. -- Cat ^chi? 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Page protection is designed as a temporary measure to prevent edit warring on a single article. In cases of persistent edit warring over a large number of articles, page protection is not a viable remedy, since applying full protection to thousands of articles for an extended period of time would be extremely disruptive. If TTN (talk · contribs)'s response to an injunction forbidding him to edit war over the inclusion of television episode characters by means of redirection is to start edit warring over the inclusion of video game characters by blanking large portions of articles -- see [30] and [31] as additional examples of unilateral blankings of content -- believing his activities to be sufficiently removed from the letter of the injunction that he can circumvent its purpose, then the only remedy available to prevent TTN from engaging in further edit warring over a large number of articles is to block TTN's account. John254 15:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the solution is to interpret the episode redirection injunction as general, and to interpret it broadly for those who aren't parties to the case, but to interpret it strictly for those who are parties to the case. ie. To have TTN and other parties to the case to be asked to stop redirecting/unredirecting on any articles. There is plenty of other work that can be done while they wait for the case to finish. Carcharoth (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which again brings up my point - even in the face of an arbcom injunction, he continues to behave as usual. Hence my concern about being a single-purpose account with no interest apart from removing content. QED cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John254, will you stop at nothing to try to get a good and valued contributor blocked? He clearly hasn't violated any arbcom injunction. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

In this case, assuming good faith, I don't see the removal of the tag as being a reversion and necessitating any action. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33 has broken his 1 revert a week parole on the Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States article.

He made the following reversions:

02:33, 24 January 2008

21:00, 29 January 2008

As far as I know removing a tag added by another user does count as a reversion. Even if he was justified in removing the latter two, he had no reason to remove the "long" tag as I had only recently added it myself. John Smith's (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John for future reference be sure to notify the user you are reporting that you have reported them (I mentioned this report to Giovanni on his talk page so you don't have to worry about it now). There might be a technical violation here but I don't view this report as particularly helpful (the last edit was four days ago and was certainly not disruptive which was why no one reported it at the time). John and Gio are in a long-standing dispute and I view reports by either of them on the behavior of the other as rather non-constructive (indeed I view any instances of Wiki-tattling - particularly over what is at most an extremely trivial violation of an ArbCom restriction - with some disdain). Their original Jung Chang dispute has now migrated to Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States - which Giovanni has edited for a very long time and which John recently found his way to - but neither editor has been engaging in problematic editing on that article in my opinion which is what really matters here (I would never even have noticed that Giovanni made two reverts in a week and John apparently had to make a point to track down these two edits four and ten days after they were originally made). If an admin finds it necessary to block Giovanni I would also suggest a pointed note that both of these users should avoid efforts to "get" the other one via AN/I posts, notes to admins, Arb Enforcement reports, etc. It only serves to escalate a really pointless dispute.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict). This is an extremely petty case of a POINT by JS, and more of the same of his seeking further conflict with me by trying to get my in trouble. Please note that the edit in question took place on Tuesday, and JohnSmith's reverted me right away Tues., 5 days ago:[32], and the matter was dropped, done and over with. There was no edit warring, and I did not oppose him. Yet that he feels he need to report me here 5 days AFTER it's even relevant to anything, right after he was given a "final warning" by an admin for his constant attempt at provocating and seeking conflicts with me, wikstalking, etc:[33] is what is relevant here. Apparently JohnSmith was not happy at that since he failed to get me in trouble by reporting me to that admin (it backfired on him), so now he is admin/board shopping with this petty reporting here.
• The fact is that I raised my concern of his wikistalking and conflict seeking on ANI, and then JohnSmiths report me to an admin with a false report (and said Admin then warns both of us to knock it off)--yet now he reports me for what is best a trivial infraction 5 days ago, about a tag and other edit that are over 5 days apart as well? Clearly JohnSmiths has not "knocked it off" yet, and is ignoring his "final warning."
• For him to report this here to seek a block is further proof of him seeking conflict and bad will. As most admins know, its the spirit of our revert restrictions what matter, just like it is for the 3RR rule. Those who go after and report something that is a week old, that they didnt care to do at the time, and appear to be motivated only to get the other editor in trouble, even though there is no issue anymore, is frowned upon. This is what JohnSmith is doing here. I'm sure if I bothered to look through all of his edits I can find something way back a week or two ago where I could report him, too. But that would be infantile, petty, and quite frankly, deserving of a block for POINT. But JohnSmith's does this and out all things it was just a removal of a tag?! (which I did not revert since I did not replace it back, when I learned that there was apparently an editor who objected to it (JohnSmith himself) Extremely petty.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't asked for a block - I've made a report. If the removal of a tag doesn't count as a revert, no problem. If it does then at the least you should acknowledge you shouldn't have removed it - the point is I placed it there and you removed it. And I would have raised the issue earlier if I had realised you made the other revert.

As for previous warnings, I don't think you can use them to stop me making a report over a potential violation of an arb-comm ruling. John Smith's (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, if you want me to be direct I will go so far as to say I do not want a block - just a reference made on the arbitration log list that Giovanni did break his revert parole (if that was the case). John Smith's (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

block reset

RodentofDeath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

202.69.172.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anon makes their first edit an RFC "Questioning the accuracy and NPOV" of Human trafficking in Angeles City, and their 2nd re-introducing a personal attack (rape accusation) on Fr. Cullen in PREDA. These edits are characteristic of the tendentious edits for which User:RodentofDeath was banned. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious case of ban evasion. IP shorttime blocked, account block reset to 1 year from today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I will revert the RFC per WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. While the article has problems, this RFC does not seem helpful. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beat you to it by a few seconds. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do good work. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

both blokced

Fadix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rodolui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fadix has acknowledged that Rodolui is his sock. The sock has been blocked, but I havent reset the ban. John Vandenberg (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Fadix banned. #Blocks to implement bans logs two resets to the ban already, most recently 5/6 September. GRBerry 19:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban reset. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

both warned, see Eleland thread

Could an uninvolved admin please notify this user of the potential sanctions specified by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles? He/she appears to be reverting in the POV that areas in East Jerusalem are parts of Israel, a POV adopted by (part of) Israel's government but essentially nobody else. I noticed this on Tomb of Samuel but it also seems to be happening at Gilo. No drastic action needed, I just want to be sure he's aware of the special sensitivity which applies to Isr-Pal articles since that decision. <eleland/talkedits> 18:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See related thread above on Eleland, both sides are pushing it. Both warned. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

No action taken. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTN is continuing to remove article content despite the arbitration injunction on the matter that was passed at 02:00 on 3 February 2008 with the 4th vote. A few examples:

• Pikmin (series)
• List of Death Note characters
• Aladdin (TV series)

Therefore I request arbitration enforcement. -- Cat ^chi? 19:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing unneeded plot summaries, condensing and rearranging information, and removing red links is part of the cleanup process. The point of the injunction is to stop pages from being redirected or brought back. If they didn't want any of the parties to do any editing relating to fiction, they would have stated that. TTN (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that TTN's edits to those pages are in violation of the temporary injunction. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

No action taken here. Complaint archived without response at WP:AN/I. I will make a comment to both users, but not as action here. GRBerry

• Note: -- Relevant Arbitration case = Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS, due to Arbitration ruling of article probation on topic, Scientology.

1. Warning given to JustaHulk (talk · contribs) on WP:ANI by Jehochman (talk · contribs).
2. Harassment on Wikinews
3. AFTER the warning notice by Jehochman, JustaHulk posts again - to talk page of Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs). JustaHulk calls the subject heading: "Wikinews is a crack whore".
4. Twice calls me a "propagandist"
5. JustaHulk claims to Jehochman that he is done with his inflammatory actions, admits he reneged on Jehochman's warning
6. Justanother notes that his own comment to Thatcher was trolling
7. That then gets reverted by Thatcher
8. JustaHulk creates an attack page (That page was deleted by Jehochman (talk · contribs) with the comment: "Appears to be an attack page with no encyclopedic purpose." )
9. Again making disruptive comments at talk page of Jimbo Wales

Durova (talk · contribs) comments at talk page of Jimbo Wales: JustaHulk, twice now you've proposed that Cirt is a "paid propagandist". Do you have anything more than an edit count to support that very serious accusation?

More recently, JustaHulk (talk · contribs) has posted an "announcement" at both the userpage for User:JustaHulk, and the userpage for User:Justanother, where he says: I found myself objecting strongly to a prolific propagandist successfully embedding him/herself in this project and at WikiNews where s/he found some willing cohorts and little moderating influence. -- Again, though not directly mentioning a particular user, this use of this language "prolific propagandist", again, is a blatant violation of WP:NPA.

1. "prolifict propagandist" inflammatory wording at userpage for Justanother
2. "prolifict propagandist" inflammatory wording at userpage for JustaHulk
3. He calls attention to his "announcement" at the talk page for Jimbo Wales

This user does not seem to be able to stop, even after comments from Administrators of both Wikipedia and Wikinews, and a recent warning from Jehochman (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I note the following:
  1. Behavior at Wikinews is outside the scope of Wikipedia enforcement. Some users who are successful elsewhere have become unwelcome here, and some users unwelcome elsewhere are successful here.
  2. None of the diffs are to articles, or even to article talk pages.
  3. Justahulk/Justanother is urged to avoid Shutterbug/COFS in the arbitration and warning.
  4. So far as I can tell, Cirt does not discluse that he is the same editor as COFS/Shutterbug. Nor does he disclose that he is Makoshack and Misou, who are to be treated as if they were COFS.
• Based on this, I think there is no case for arbitration enforcement alleged here, and no arbitration enforcement should occur. Both editors should probably be advised to behave civilly toward one another, but not as arbitration enforcement. GRBerry 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I noted the following here, because the actions of JustaHulk (talk · contribs), as Justanother (talk · contribs), have been heavily discussed in the above arbitration case. If this is not the proper location, I will repose this to WP:ANI. Cirt (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the comment by GRBerry (talk · contribs) re: behavior at Wikinews - yes, I agree that behavior on a different sister project may not be part of the scope of Wikipedia enforcement. But disruption by JustaHulk (talk · contribs), constantly posting inflammatory disruptive remarks about behavior on a different project - is within the scope of Wikipedia enforcement. For example, this, and more recently, this.Cirt (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that although the arbitration remedy doesn't specifically restrict Justanother/Justahulk, it does have a provision concerning "Harassment of User:Justanother by User:Anynobody" which states: "Anynobody has since at least March 2007 complained to and of Justanother with great frequency and persistence, and sometimes without relevance to mainspace editing, on WP:ANI, a variety of user talkpages, WP:RFA, and other fora, some of them clearly not intended for such use." This strikes me as quite relevant to the situation that Cirt describes. I would suggest that this remedy be widened to prohibit the harassment of any editor involved in this subject area by any other editor involved in the same subject area. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Due to the comment by GRBerry (talk · contribs), above, I have posted this notice to WP:ANI. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• JustaHulk appears to have given up editing on Wikinews after it became painfully apparent he has a conflict of interest on Scientology. He has not shown sufficient maturity to be asked to give a pro-Scientology point of view and avoid whitewashing articles or interviews where he could otherwise inject a degree of balance. Instead he resorts to denigrating the project here on Wikipedia by trolling Jimmy Wales' talk page and generally "being a dick". I would welcome some pro-scientology questions for our upcoming interviews with CoS critics, but if they're all as crazy as JustaHulk it is a waste of time. I'm better off trying to formulate pro-CoS questions myself, and I don't think highly of the organisation. He tried to tell us that we were producing inappropriate coverage of the takedown of the CoS website, but as it turns out we were first to cover something that turned into real-world protests with 8-10K people globally protesting the church on Lisa McPherson's birthday. Wikinews doesn't have any enemies (apart from WoW) but if we maintained a shit list JustaHulk would be on it for attacking contributors and questioning their integrity. --Brian McNeil /^talk 23:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Block for 96 hours is being issued. On February 7th SA was warned against some of the language used, and upon completing my investigation, I fiund that he both assumed bad faith and was incivil. Apologies to all for my delay in returning to this. GRBerry 20:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shortened to roughly 48 hours at request of the mediator. GRBerry 14:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA is currently under a one-year editing restriction and faces immediate block for incivility or assumption of bad faith as per this ArbCom ruling.

This message left on my talk page constitutes incivility and an assumption of bad faith in regards to this comment, which he reverted with an equally uncivil edit summary.

I ask that the terms of the ArbCom ruling be enforced. Ronnotel (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnotel is being a disruptive editor by trying to get me censured for pointing out his inappropriate actions at a mediation page. This is fairly tendentious. As the guideline clearly states, POV-pushing should be discussed at user talkpages. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My actions were neither disruptive nor inappropriate. I removed a description that is not supported by the cited source and removed references to sources that SA himself labeled as fringe. My edit summary clearly describes my action and my reason. While I had not commented in the thread out of a desire to maintain some distance, I had been following it closely and contributed as I felt appropriate. However, none of this excuses SA's actions nor his obligation under the ArbCom ruling. SA's description of me as POV Pushing is unsupported by the evidence and a blatant violation of WP:AGF. In the same policy cited by SA above is the statement calling someone a "POV-pusher" is always uncivil and hence a violation of his editing restriction. Ronnotel (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never called you a POV-pusher. I think you should consider carefully what you are saying here. Your shrillness in attacking me defies understanding. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is occurring on the talk page of a request for mediation. Does the mediator consider the conduct to be disrupting the mediation? I'm going to ask for their input. GRBerry 20:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect, the assumption of bad faith and incivility occurred on my talk page, not just the mediation page. And in any case, the ArbCom ruling pertains to incivility and failing to assume good faith without regard to where it may have occurred. I have no objection to conferring with the mediator, but I ask that the merits of this complaint be judged against the standard set by the ArbCom ruling, which is what was used to prepare it. Ronnotel (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA's comment was well within the usual limit of discourse on Wikipedia. Trying to get a valuable editor banned on what is at best a technicality is unproductive and petty. I assume that you are not a Princess to suffer severely from this pea. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. I don't accuse others of POV Pushing and I resent being so labeled. Countless other editors have suffered under this type of behavior from SA and ArbCom, finally, took action to prevent him from being a disruptive force. That he chose to yet again violate this restriction (he has already been blocked twice under it) demonstrates his regard for maintaining a civil and productive environment. Either ArbCom rulings mean something or they don't. Ronnotel (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mediator, I will agree with Ronnotel's points. There was much discussion above that went on for several weeks, where I allowed every editor that was involved with Cold Fusion to state their points and comment upon my recommendations or notes. As it stands now, the time for extensive comments is over and we have moved onto the editing stages -- taking apart, section by section, Cold Fusion in an attempt to create a neutral and balanced article. Right now, we are working on the lead.

It was fairly smooth sailing, and I made a note that anyone involved can edit the text to their liking, in respect to the comments that I had left above (with respect to outside considerations), but now it seems that it has devolved into another edit war -- which mediation was supposed to solve.

I am asking that both "ScienceApologist" and "Pcarbonn" please recuse themselves from editing any further on the lead until I can make a more valid inspection, and see if any points stand. As is, edit warring is entirely useless and counterproductive, and leads us back to where we were at start. I will note that the edit summaries used by "ScienceApologist" in the mediation and elsewhere shows that he is either not assuming good faith or hasn't grasped how to use correct edit summaries -- and by the looks of it, I will take the former over the latter. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You are asking whether the conduct of Ronnotel has been disruptive. It certainly wasn't: it was his only edit in weeks, he clearly explained his reason in the edit summary, and these reasons were already given in details by others in the corresponding discussion on the talk page. POV-pushing is defined as "the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view": this certainly does not apply to Ronnotel's edit. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a guideline for disruptive editing. Engaging in discussion through edit summaries is fairly confrontational. In the context of this contentious matter, I consider it disruptive. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Placing a comment in an edit summary instead of in-line with the discussion is hardly disruptive and nowhere in the guideline you cite does it remotely say such a thing. Ronnotel (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to voice strong support for Ronnotel's complaint. SA has treated his civility restriction with impunity, spoken out frequently on his disdain for Wikipedia's civility policies, and has repeatedly attacked me and others in the general form of "I'm sorry you are ignorant of (insert subject here)", and various other uncivil remarks. My situation was similar, a source SA cited did not support his edits, and when this was pointed out and demonstrated SA responded by attacking, having the effect of drawing attention to the editor and away from the edits. Leave a message or drop me an email if any diffs are needed. WNDL42 (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

blocked 31 hours by FutPerf

RodentofDeath (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

74.220.203.56 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

74.220.203.56 adds an RFC similar to the one added a few days ago by 202.69.172.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), which was blocked for being banned user RodentofDeath. Incidentally, RodentofDeath self-identifies as a traveler who can post from geographically varying IP addresses. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contribs show no edits to an RFC by either IP. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Edits are to Talk:Human trafficking in Angeles City. 74.220.203.56 is resuming a campaign started by 202.69.172.48, which is pretty obviously RodentofDeath. Identical request with substitute language. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. I wouldn't have taken the new edit on its own as clear evidence, as it was relatively moderately worded, but the exact identity with the wording of the previous IP, which had been much more distinctly Rodent-like in its second edit, makes things clear enough, I think. Feel free to roll back its edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Kékrōps (talk · contribs) was recently placed under an 1r/d revert parole under WP:ARBMAC by Moreschi, and promptly blocked for a breach of it a few days after. Now, two days after his coming back from that block, I see him revert-warring on talk pages [54], [55]. He was also continuing various slow revert wars across several articles yesterday, while sticking with 1r/d, yet ignoring the requirement of accompanying talk page discussion here [56], [57], [58]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I was not aware that restoring a comment of mine, removed by another user on a third party's talk page, constituted a violation of any revert parole. To me, having my comments deleted is a simple case of obvious vandalism. Regarding my other reversions, they were either clearly explained in my edit summaries as a straightforward enforcement of WP:MOSMAC, thus not requiring further explanation on the talk pages, or a restoration of an administrator's version that had been vandalised. As for my recent block, I believe it was unjustified. It was not a content dispute; I was simply reverting the obviously misleading claim that consensus had been achieved on the use of "Macedonia" in country templates, when in fact the matter was still being debated by several editors on the relevant talk page. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being "an administrator's version" is nothing that confers a version any special degree of authority, and makes reverting to it any less a part of revert warring. I suppose you are referring to this one [59] - that didn't even have an edit summary, and the edit you reverted was most certainly not vandalism. You've been here long enough to know all these things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we must have different interpretations of "vandalism", then. If removing a long-standing note that specifically restricts the scope of a template, in order to facilitate a POV edit, is not vandalism, what is it? I remind you that this was a note established by consensus. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed user talk page comments ([60], [61]) strike me as being both provocative and unnecessary. Fut. Perf. had asked for a translation, not a political commentary, and the comments aren't a good idea as far as Wikipedia:Civility is concerned. I note that WP:CIV authorises the removal of uncivil comments so it seems rather unwise to twice revert such a removal, particularly in the light of the clearly expressed reason for removing it prior to the second revert. Concerning this reversion [62], Kekrops has a point although it was arguably a clumsily done reversion (it certainly should have had an edit summary). The version that he reverted to is essentially one that's been in place since October 2006 ([63]) and there's a long-standing convention that "countries" templates don't list unrecognised territories (compare Template:Countries of Europe with Template:Countries and territories of the Middle East, which has a wider scope). We may need to change the scope of Template:Countries of Europe and its subordinate templates to encompass territories, but that's a discussion that needs to take place elsewhere before European territories start getting listed in templates. Personally, I would have reverted that edit as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is using racist epithets against other ethnic groups, albeit in another language, acceptable according to Wikipedia:Civility? Why haven't these editors been sanctioned for calling Bulgarians "Tatars" and Greeks "sub-saharans"? Another editor has even tried to defend them by denying that they implied inferiority and instead accused me of racism for suggesting that they did, as well as telling me to "shut up" in Spanish in the edit summary. I'm finding it very hard to assume good faith here. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have now been accused of "baiting" the editor who made the racist remarks in the first place. Is this acceptable? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, using racial epithets in any language isn't acceptable. If we can have a proper translation of that discussion (which I assume is in Macedonian?) let's review what it actually says so that action can be taken if needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation is on Fut. Perf's talk page. And Kékrōps seems to have a history of racism, see user talk:Kékrōps#Racist! and User talk:Kékrōps/Archives/2008/September#Marcos Baghdatis. Both times his response to accusations was "Piss off". BalkanFever 11:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I request that disciplinary action be taken against the above user for persistently calling me a racist, a clear violation of WP:NPA. I have repeatedly asked him to stop, to no avail. Enough is enough. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour towards Kekrops, especially by admin Fut.Perf. is a blatant case of double standards, if you see Fut.Perf.'s behaviour towards BalkanFever. In one case he's quick to ban (or rather refer the ban to Moreschi), in the other case he's the first to stand in support and just offer friendly advice Now I might be biased and consider that BalkanFever is much more provocative than Kekrops, but let's for a moment consider that they are both equally provocative and then monitor the admins behaviour towards them. I invite any third party to do exactly that.--   Avg    18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to that talk page discussion. From my reading of it, Raso mk and MacedonianBoy had called Bulgarians and Greeks "Tatars" and "sub-saharans" respectively; you were advising MacedonianBoy to avoid using such language because it was racist and would give other users the chance to complain. In response, Kekrops posted the comments that you twice removed and he twice reverted ([64]). Is that correct? If so, my take on it is as follows: Kekrops was factually correct to criticize MacedonianBoy's language as basically racist, but he was unwise to cause unnecessary aggravation by posting inflammatory comments, and doubly unwise to abuse reversion to restore his comments after your objections. You were right to caution MacedonianBoy against using language that could give offence, but it wasn't the best idea in the circumstances for you to remove Kekrops' comments (leave that to MacedonianBoy, it's his talk page). I think the two of you need to be more careful about the way you deal with each other - don't remove each others' comments, don't abuse reversion and think before you post. If it's not necessary to post something, don't post it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But the reason I removed it was because of the unnecessary aggravation. I still consider that as Kekrops' original purpose. After calming MacedonianBoy down, and successfully persuading him to not make offensive comments any more, I honestly felt that Kekrops' comments would send the whole situation back to square one. BalkanFever 08:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was important to clarify in English what he said and against whom, so that appropriate action could be taken. You obviously disagree. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so obvious, why did I translate his comments in the first place? You were not asked to clarify anything - 1) because you do not understand the Macedonian language, and 2) because Future Perfect can draw conclusions from the translation himself. BalkanFever 02:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to advocate Kekrops position or something, but I think he has hit a few spots here. I noticed he not only got a revert parole, but he might be endangered by a lengthy block. So what I think is - this would be quite unfair - yeah I know that Kekrops is here from a long time and should have got familiar with the rules by now, and that we should always assume good faith (if that's possible for someone that has a Userbox "This user does not believe in Greek history" - whatever that has to mean - its his right to have such a box after all), but then is there any particular reason as to why the other user didn't get any block? And BalkanFever's two edit-wars on Vergina Sun and United Macedonia passed on unnoticed - he was not even warned for it and yet the topics are well within the Balkan's peremeter. I'd understand Kekrops and the other Greek editors feeling a little frustrated. --Laveol ^T 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that you don't mention the other guy who was involved - User:The Cat and the Owl (If you are interested in userboxes, check that out ;-)). I really don't see what blocking MacedonianBoy could have achieved - the comments were made on his talk page, which he would have been allowed to edit anyway while blocked. Not to mention he was unaware of WP:ARBMAC at the time. BalkanFever 02:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you are ;) . And he should not be using ethnic slurs when he refers to other editors (or to anybody) and in this case he is well aware what he's saying (writing) and if it offends someone. --Laveol ^T 15:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I told him. Where are you going with this? BalkanFever 15:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that even though you told him in a private Slavic conversation not to use racist slurs, when the matter was raised in English, you chose to defend rather than condemn him. And by the way, I know enough South Slavic to know when I'm being insulted, so it was entirely appropriate for me to point it out to everyone rather than wait for someone to translate the conversation. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I translated it over 2 hours before you made the comment. BalkanFever 06:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad; I didn't see your translation until afterwards, as it was on another talk page, not where the racist comments were initially made and the translation requested. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concentrated more on who requested the translation, not on where they requested it. BalkanFever 07:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert parole for Kékrōps altered and extended: logged at WP:ARBMAC. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Radical-Dreamer placed on editing restrictions, including 1RR/week for 3 months and indefinite civility supervision, as detailed here. MastCell

This user's contributions consist almost entirely of contentious reversions on Israel-Palestine articles, often accompanied by hostile personal commentary. Since February he has made at least 15 reversions on Israel-Palestine pages and exactly 0 talk page postings.

Edit-warring and POV

• [65] [66] [67] [68] Violating 3RR against 4 different editors to change "The 2006 war with Israel" to "The 2006 war which Hezbollah started against Israel"

• [69] Reverting an unsourced addendum including, "[Amnesty International] have pushed for Israel to be held responsible for the entire [Israel-Palestine] conflict to the United Nations"

• [70] [71] Repeatedly blanking and adding a contested prod template, after specific direction to take it to WP:RFD.
  • Note that I posted on the user's talk page [72] to specifically point out that blanking and re-adding a prod template was inappropriate: he removed the warning with no comment except "Get a life" [73] and continued edit-warring the blanking and prod template: [74]

• [75] Inserting a non-existent image into an article, apparently just out of carelessness while WP:STALKing and reverting me.

Incivility and assuming bad faith

• [76] "We are not debating here whether you're pro-Arab or pro-Israel (although, IMO, it is quite obvious that you're pro-Arab)."

• [77] "The author is a Palestinian who inserts his own P.O.V. into articles and creates these kind of redirections."
  • Agreed with the substance of Eleland's report. Radical-Dreamer is therefore placed on various editing restrictions, including a revert limitation and civility supervision. See here for details. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're doing this out of support for Eleland POVs and abusing your privileges. But fine, Eleland will get blocked eventually. It's only a matter of time. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radical-Dreamer, Eleland's POV does not justify purposely running after him and making violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. If you have a case against him then you should gather it and post it at the proper forums such as WP:ANI, WP:AE (as Eleland posted with examples on you) or you can try WP:DR also.

I suggest you read the Arbcom final decisions and take serious notes. p.s. saying "out of support for Eleland POVs" is a big no-no even if he fits the "involved admin" descriptions in the final decision of the Arbcom.

Eleland, You can't be surprised when someone accuses you for POV when you create Israeli Occupation Forces (history)... did you calmly explained the situation to Radical-Dreamer or did you add some spirit with your reply?

To a reviewing admin, I'm a very involved editor and should not make character judgments, but I feel Eleland, who was just blocked for 48 hours for his own violations has his own hand in causeing this conflict and that while Radical-Dreamer reacted poorly and violated the final decisions, he should be given a warning first and only blocked if the stalking issue persists. I disagree with some of the content based diffs presented, but as I've said, I'm highly involved and was even called "Mr. POV pusher" by another involved editor.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC) added a personal note 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Centralized discussion is up. Please restrict usage of this page to bring up enforcement issues only. El_C 07:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For excessive reverts on related articles (Pisgat Ze'ev, Gilo, Ramot, Har Homa, Neve Yaakov), Colourinthemeaning (talk · contribs), ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs), Robertert (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs), and possibly other users upon examination (needless to say, anyone else reverting on this set of articles, is at risk of being added), are, for the next month, placed on a one-(talk page obligatory)-rr on any Jerusalem-related entry. We are not going to have this multiple-entry revert war go on, indefinitely. I gotta step out now, but I will give this formula further thought later. Comment below, but please keep them brief. Long winded debate will be aggressively redacted. Many thanks. El_C 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please do take action against User:Colourinthemeaing, who went ahead and did a blanket revert well after you sent this message. In fact, this person should be blocked from Wikipedia altogether for the disruptive and aggressive nature of his "editing," which is to go from article to article and insert his personal views, and promptly set off an argument with people who have long contributed to the page before he parachuted out of nowhere and decided that he is God's gift to Wikipedia (if not mankind).--Gilabrand (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish someone could put in some time to read through all this. I know that it isn't the most simple dispute but it is straightforward. Most of the discussion is here. --Robertert (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "someone," there's only moi. I highly doubt anyone else would be willing to look into this. These disputes are too time consuming and the Arbitration Committee strict criteria of "uninvolved" means that few admins looking into these issues have the necessary familiarity with the content to speed things up enough. Anyway, both sides are allowed one revert per day, including a talk page comment. No one has violated that, yet. And, no, nobody is getting blocked, yet. I'll set up a centralized one, so please respond there. El_C 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Nothing to see here. Final warning given to Jaakobou for trying to use WP:AE as a weapon for block-shopping. This flood of reports is getting out of hand. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles,
• 'Case Final Decisions' .
• Eleland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1) I've previously posted 25 diffs from 3 weeks after the Arbcom (i.e. more than one per day) of soft decorum and editorial process violations resulting in a warning for Eleland (talk · contribs).

The diffs were directed -- during conflict -- at editors, not content.

Chosen samples:

• "political leaders of a faction you identify with" [78] stricken. 04:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• "a [[User:Jayjg|time honoured tradition]]... makes you look rather desperate" [79]
• "your personal crackpot interpretation of the RSes" [80]
• "because you don't like them." [81]
• "looks a lot like just shouting "antisemite!" because something personally troubles you." [82]
• "quote that you're so very, very fond of." [83]
• "achieved via serial POV-pushing" (directed at a single editor) [84]

2) After the given warning, Eleland has again made a similar violation and was blocked for 48 hours'. Eleland then made a pledge of civility, requesting an unblock which was granted.

• "[I]nsulting language is not appropriate anywhere. I will not again... collaborating to improve articles, not attack one another. I will also pledge not to edit... for seven days starting today. I will refrain from any direct communication with Jaakobou for the same period." - Eleland, 00:34, 15 February 2008.
• "Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Sounds fair to me." - Jpgordon, 03:25, 15 February 2008.

3) During recent couple days, Eleland has made numerous "indirect" user directed commentary and incivility violations of the Arbcom final decisions.

• "Jayjg... anyone who opposed his fairly ludicrous interpretation" - [85]
• "I can't help but wonder if a person or persons is pushing for the POV of the Israeli extreme right" - [86]
• "Sidelines about incivility (or whatever) will not distract from the real issue here... Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman do not hold "veto power" over our presentation of facts in this encyclopedia. Nor do their adherents." - [87]
• "I'm aware that there are far worse Israeli right-wingers than Netanyahu. Some of them edit Wikipedia." - [88]

Eleland's approach suggests he purposefully makes personal attacks that are "vague" and "indirect". It has been the same pattern when he previously had the audacity to "indirectly" suggest I was a war criminal or when he made an old apology that looked more like mockery; and I note that it hasn't even been the pledged 7 days since his first block was lifted. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I violated my pledge not to communicate directly with Jaakobou. I forgot it. I do find it interesting that he waited until he had drawn me into a talk page conflict, without making any attempt to remind me, and then posted to WP:AE once he had accumulated a bit of heated dialogue. In any case, if this means my original block needs to be reset, then reset it. I should have taken more care to follow the conditions I volunteered for myself.

First, I'm not sure why Jaakobou chose to cite his earlier "25 diffs" against me. Those diffs were liberally padded with totally innocuous edits, clumsily contextomized, and the whole complaint was dismissed as (almost) totally without merit. No surprise there; his first diff contains my shocking and offensive request that Wikipedians "please, don't tell us what you personally believe, or what notable political leaders of a faction you identify with believe, unless you are able to present credible scholarly sources which endorse those beliefs specifically." Horrors!

I don't know whether Jaakobou is really affronted by this type of simple, reasonable, policy-based commentary, or if he's deliberately quote mining in bad faith, but either way it's getting very tiresome. Look at his bizarre "apology that looked like mockery" claims; that was manifestly a sincere and heartfelt mea culpa, but he's constantly posting that diff as if it's evidence against me!

Likewise, Jaakobou's claim that I stated or implied that he was a war criminal is a simple falsehood. The only statement I made about him was that he is an IDF member; I do not know whether that is the case, I should not have said it, and I withdraw the claim. I stated, correctly, that Jaakobou would not answer questions about whether he was involved in a particular IDF operation. Jaakobou has maliciously tied together the claim about "how destructive [his] actions are" to the IDF member issue, but the full quote makes it clear they are totally separate:

Yes, yes, I have noticed that you like to complain about incivility instead of addressing substantive issues. I find your need to see yourself as a helpless victim, unjustifiably targeted by hostile forces, regardless of how destructive your actions are, to be fascinating [...] If you remove material with no justification, or with no more than a passing reference to some TV show you saw on Israel's equivalent of the Discovery Channel, you'll face this type of response. [...] Two cases in point would be your insertion of the term "Big Jenin Lie" in boldface to the lede, and your original research claims of accusations of "genocide" when that term only appeared once in all of the sources you provided.

Now, on this particular dispute, which occured on Talk:Palestinian people: A review will show that Jaakobou arrived independently at a novel interpretation of the sources, edited the article to reflect this, and then refused to listen to reason when called on it. He wanted to say that the largest Palestinian population (actually, the "majority") is in Jordan, and not the Palestinian territories, because he believes that they are "artificially unified." Well, he's welcome to believe that, but that's not what the sources say. I provided a survey of staunchly pro-Israel sources (Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jewish Virtual Library, Yediot Ahranot,) all of which list a population for the West Bank and Gaza in the "artificially unified" fashion. He simply ignored them.

Jaakobou's approach suggests that he starts spurious disputes through questionable editing, sustains them until the point where people lose patience and object pointedly POV-pushing, and then cries "j'accuse" over incivility. It also suggests that he uses intellectually dishonest methods in an effort to secure blocks on his opponents in content disputes. <eleland/talkedits> 03:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing I forgot to mention. It was actually Jaakobou, not me, who broke the "no direct communication" provision; shortly after I was unblocked pledging not to talk to him, he started a discussion on my talk page. He was trying to claim that Zionism did not originate in the late 19th century, and that his sources supported this. His sources said that Zionism originated in the late 19th century. I called him on this, he dissembled and made vague accusations about me. [89]I realized what he was doing and blanked the discussion. It looks like he later found a better way to bait me. <eleland/talkedits> 03:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleland, just because you believe something to be false and I believe it to be correct does not mean I am practicing in "intellectual dishonesty"; and it certainly doesn't give you justification to make "indirect" suggestions that I'm far worse than extremist right winged politicians. I already gave you a polite request that you stop with these comments, but you've ignored my request and practically dared me to file a complaint. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Sour grapes after the report below (putting it bluntly). Nothing doing here. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "This user's contributions consist almost entirely of contentious reversions on Israel-Palestine articles, often accompanied by hostile personal commentary" - Not true. "eleland" is pissed of because I submitted his "Israeli Occupation Forces" redirect to RfD.
• He has been bothering me and stalking me for quite a while.
• He's trying to get me blocked due to the fact that my opinions differs from his.

To "eleland" - stop stalking me and stop bothering me. I don't want any kind of connection with people like you. You seriously need to grow up and I won't even bother going over the infinite number of unjustified POVs you've edited into articles. I'm not interested in any kind of discussion with you. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Much as I hate to disappoint, nobody is getting blocked or paroled today (such a shame, after all that). Both parties are warned to play nice with each other in future. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has violated the Decorum principals, specifically 'personal attack', 'incivility', and 'assumption of bad faith' with the following edit summary and diff:

• "Mr POV pusher himself"
• "the biggest POV pusher around" - пﮟოьεԻ 57, 16:00, 13 February 2008.

Requesting a retraction and apology or administrative action. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not going to apologise. I might have WP:AGF a year ago, but your contributions make it quite clear that you are a POV pusher; as evidenced here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbcom ended a month ago with no action taken against either of us. I believe that bad faith assumptions and personal attacks are detrimental to the Israeli-Palestiian articles and to the project in general. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no action taken against me because I wasn't an involved party, and I have no idea why there was no action taken against you given the weight of evidence provided my myself and several other editors. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is misleading as you were certainly mentioned in the presented evidence but this is entirely germane to the reason I posted this complaint. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only by yourself in an attempt to discredit my evidence against you, and in passing by two editors, one of whom noted my response to an RfC, and another who noted that pro-Israeli editors attempted to bring down my RfA. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea on how your comment relates to this complaint about a personal attack, but I'd be interested in resolving the old disputes and avoiding future similar attacks in the future. I think the best solution would be a retraction (and maybe even an apology) so that we can move forward, but I don't see that you're interested in leaving the past in the past. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to forgive and forget, but whilst you have reduced your bias in the article space, the fact that you're complaining about Nickhh's perfectly legitimate NPOVing of several articles suggests that there is still an underlying issue. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickhh is not the person making the "Mr POV pusher himself" comment.

I'm requesting a retraction. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Links should always be to the final decision in a case, not the proposed decision. The final decision is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. I, who read the enforcement definition of "Uninvolved administrators" very stringently, defer evaluation of the situation to other administrators here. Frankly, though, I think the complainant deserves close scrutiny and am certain they are not an uninvolved bystander. GRBerry 17:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I also will not consider myself an "uninvolved administrator" by a stringent definition, since I am currently working with Jaakobou on a different Palestine-related article. However, it would seem to me that the operative part of remedy 1 of that case is "despite being warned, repeatedly or seriously fails". 1) Is there evidence that the user has been warned that his behavior is inappropriate? 2) Is there evidence that his behavior entails serious failings after said warning? If so, let's see it, please. - Revolving Bugbear 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can live with a retraction (and hopefully an apology), but Number 57 just repeats the same "he's POV!!!" vindication of the insulting comment. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only quotes and case decision links here. Both sides please provide pertinent DIFFS. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Jaakobou's repeated reinsertion of a huge criticism section to the article on left-wing journalist Gideon Levy ([90][91][92][93][94] - at one stage the criticism section amounted to more than two thirds of the article's length) was a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and thus a good basis for pointing out that he is a POV pusher. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint here

• per '"Mr POV pusher himself... the biggest POV pusher around (which is why I want you banned from Middle East articles)"'

Has nothing to do with a months old argument from October that Number 57 has etched to his memory (similar opposite examples exist but are germane). Number 57's old notes only show that he is an involved admin, who refuses to let go of very old disputes, and therefore should not pertain to be neutral.

On point, Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are a violation of the Arbcom final decision and as long as he does not post an ANI or AE notice about recent activity; Number 57 should avoid making comments while reminiscing about conflicts we had months ago.

My request is a retraction (and hopefully an apology) or administrative action.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Number57-that's from 5 months ago. Anything more recent?
• Jaakobou-you have not provided diffs of your allegations of 57's incivility and personal attacks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to help. How about this whole section, written by Jaakobou more or less in its entirety, and last amended only a couple of days ago? Or this factual error which happily meets a POV that suits. Or this, in total breach of a recent RfC? Can I also refer to several trivial and vexatious posts complaining about the actions of other editors on this very page, including this one and the one below? --Nickhh (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to provide this diff of Jaakobou changing an article to state that something in the West Bank is in Israel (obviously breaching WP:NPOV), but Nick beat me to it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse,

There is a single recent diff of the POV charges issue I've raised here, and other similar comments go back about a month (Arbcom days) or more.

The diffs presented by Number 57 and Nickhh, are misleading. They pick single edits out of their content based arguments. The "worst" example, Mar Saba, I've already admitted was a good faith error and my error was nicely resolved by ChrisO who corrected it, and actually made a small error of his own which I in turn corrected and all was well:

"thanks for the clarification!" - ChrisO, 01:05, 2 February 2008.

Mar Saba relevant discussion (if you're interested): [95].

My problem is that Number 57, who is an admin, sees nothing wrong with holding grudges and making these statements (self-justified "the biggest POV pusher around..I want you banned" charges); and he's promoting bad behavior from non admins who are emboldened by his comments. see this recent comment:

• "Get over yourself. It's like dealing with a sexually frustrated and incontinent adolescent." Nickhh, 23:18, 14 February 2008.

I don't see a good reason that a highly involved admin will point fingers like Number 57 did. I believe it is not only a violation of the Arbcom Final decisions but that it promotes similar conduct from non-admins. I've initially requested a retraction since there was only a single recent such comment; but I don't see any sign that Number 57 might scale back. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about some more then. Jaakobou's entire purpose of editing Wikipedia appears to be to either insert [96] or strengthen [97][98] negativity about Palestinians/Arabs, or to remove [99] or weaken [100] negativity about Israel. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If my entire purpose is as Number 57 proffeses, then I would not be writing 95% of Haim Farhi, retouching Image:Peasant Family of Ramallah 1900-1910.jpg (used as the main image for all the Palestinian articles) and Image:FatehMilitia.jpg, working to fix problems on Yemenite Jews etc. etc.

I've already shown on the Arbcom that Number 57 has violated WP:3RR and WP:TE himself, and this entire discussion is not about content, but rather violations of the Arbcom decisions, which Number 57 refuses to recognize.

To be specific, this comment is a violation of the Decorum Principals. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you have made 10 edits to Haim Farhi; kinda pales into comparison with 182 edits on Battle of Jenin, 92 on Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict and 71 on Muhammad al-Durrah. In fact every single one of your 15 most-edited articles are controversial Israel-Palestinian ones [101]. In reply to your other points (a) I was asked to provide evidence to back up my claim, and (b) in the "evidence" you link to, you only claimed that I violated WP:3RR, so now trying to claim to have shown that I violated WP:TE seems to be a little bizaare (though is in line with your standard attempts to devalue criticism against your behaviour by attacking the criticiser).

Anyway, this will be my last reply to this farce, as quite frankly I have better things to do on Wikipedia (i.e. constructively editing articles) than this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since a retraction request of the uncivil personal attack was rejected by Number 57, I request some form of administrative action that will hopefully prevent future similar "better things to do on Wikipedia" contributions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - diff numbers say nothing; I've created 90% of the Haim Farhi article on my first contribution. I've also tried to slowly create good changes on problematic articles, and at those days tag-team 3RR was the norm.

Number 57's violation of 3RR shows not only that norm in action, but also how (certain few) admins abused their rollback tools in these edit conflicts while deleting anything that might be construed as pro-Israeli.

Sure, I've had my judgment lapses and made many errors in the (5 months ago past), but regardless, even if I am (allegedly) a POV pusher, an involved admin should not follow established editors to complaints they've made about someone else and bluntly state: "Mr. POV pusher... I want you banned". [102]

I was thinking a retraction could, hopefully, solve this long standing issue fast and the suggestion still stands. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so it's ok so describe someone as "not neutral" [103] and strongly insinuate that they are POV pushing by saying they delete "anything that that might be construed as pro-Israeli."[104], but not to actually call them a POV pusher? Hilarious.

Also, you might be interested to know that I also delete pro-Palestinian stuff.[105] The joys of working on Israeli-Palestinian articles! пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I want you banned"... hysterical right? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. You are an involved admin who assumes bad faith and makes uncivil personal attacks at the hint that you are not impartial. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. Is a calmly stated opinion that a particular set of articles would be better without a particular editor in itself a personal attack? I don't think so. Relata refero (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Are you saying that there's nothing wrong with calling someone "Mr. POV himself, I want you banned" while you are an involved editor? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Mr.POV, but merely saying he doesn't understand why you're still permitted to edit a particular set of articles is relatively mild, I'd say. Relata refero (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what he said. He did not ask another Admin "why is he allowed to edit on...", he went directly to me and told me Biggest POV pusher ever!... I want you banned!. Thank you for making excuses for him though. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making excuses. I'm trying to work out what the limits of civility parole are here. Because, as I dont know the particulars of this particular dispute, I can see that I frequently tell people when I'm convinced they're pushing a POV, and I have even been known to mention to people that certain areas of the project would be better without them. At what point does that become uncivil? Genuine question, as I said. Relata refero (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might also mention that Jaakobou is attempting to mislead editors by (a) twice incorrectly asserting that I am an involved party on that RfAr - the list of involved parties is here - I merely provided evidence to the case; and (b) appears to be attempting to make my comments looks worse by inserting exclamation marks to them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Neutral Good blocked for 24 hours by SirFozzie for disruption.

We have article probation in effect. I believe this edit [106] by Neutral Good (talk · contribs · count) needs to be addressed. Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not on the waterboarding page, that's on the mediation page. Also, I'm not sure what it has to do with the article probation? I'm happy to enforce the remedy if you can help me understand what's wrong with the edit? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SWATJester. Jehochman, article probation affects "all closely related pages" and your whine for help here is symptomatic of your overall witch hunting approach at Talk:Waterboarding. Mediation is not a closely related page. Furthermore, I've been called a sockpuppet for TWO MONTHS, I have had an  Unrelated finding and a  Declined decision in separate investigations, I am sick and tired of being called a sockpuppet, and I believe that I have a right to a prompt resolution and an apology from all who have pushed that false accusation so very hard for so very, very long. Neutral Good (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester, Neutral Good has a history of forum shopping, wikilawyering and disruption. He does not have a free pass to spread waterboarding-related disruption to other pages. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding is clearly a closely related page. When he calls bona fide sock puppet investigations "witch hunts" and rolls out the same tired  Unrelated and  Declined icons, he is battling and wikilawyering. This is not an acceptable way to behave on a collaborative project. Jehochman ^Talk 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said many times, an "unrelated" result from checkuser doesn't disprove sockpuppetry. Suspicions of sockpuppetry are ultimately based on behavior, and Neutral Good's is similar enough to ByranFromPalatine's that many users think they're the same person. If I were Neutral Good, I'd stop asking for an apology, because I doubt that one is forthcoming. Anyway, I don't think Neutral Good's comment on the mediation page is a violation of the article probation, but I think his persistence in pushing the dispute on the waterboarding talk page beyond any reasonable limit is disruptive. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• More provocation by Neutral Good here: [107] I think we need to clarify that Wikipedia does not tolerate this sort of discourse. Jehochman ^Talk 21:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yet again [108] and again [109] and again [110] Neutral Good violates decorum, and disrupts multiple venues. Jehochman ^Talk 22:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Good characterizes Jehochman's request here as a "whine for help". At what point does this user reach a certain net negative contribution value that merits simply indeffing it? Lawrence § t/e 23:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example; [111] "Jehochman (talk · contribs) name withdrawn. This involved administrator is already trying to sabotage mediation. Neutral Good (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)" Lawrence § t/e 23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Now Neutral Good is misrepresenting the significance of checkuser results. This is posting to elicit a negative response (that's a euphamism): [112] [113] [114]. Jehochman ^Talk 00:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Now Neutral Good is harassing me on this very page[115], falsely implying I'm violating probation. I feel he has exhausted the patience of the community. Lawrence § t/e 00:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of comments on Talk:Waterboarding[edit]

Uninvolved admins, please review this diff: [116] I was announcing a mediation request and the results of an RFCU. User:Lawrence Cohen deleted the entire section, declaring unilaterally in his edit summary, "you have no further need to post here." Please take appropriate action against Lawrence Cohen for this disruptive violation of article probation. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mistaken subject header aside, I'm not sure why I'm being reported for removing a section on User talk:Lawrence Cohen. I'm certainly entitled. This is functionally harassment now by this disruptive SPA. Lawrence § t/e 00:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Readers should not be deceived by the erroneous heading, which appears to be purposeful disruption (poisoning the well). Any editor is allowed to remove unwelcome comments from their own talk page. User:Lawrence Cohen did not remove any comments by User:Neutral Good from Talk:Waterboarding. Jehochman ^Talk 01:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like a block is in order, though I personally don't feel I understand what's going on enough to feel comfortable issuing one. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. The evidence is improving minute by minute. Neutral Good has just left Lawrence Cohen a spurious block warning. [117]. Jehochman ^Talk 01:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Jehochman ^Talk 01:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have issued a 24 hour block on Neutral Good for disruption. SirFozzie (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A block is certainly in order. Given Neutral Good's history, he's fortunate someone as decent and generous as SirFozzie saw this - 24 hours is pretty light. If this sort of rampant bad faith and misrepresentation continues after the block expires, I'd have no problem blocking him for a substantially longer period. MastCell ^Talk 01:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Neutral Good banned from waterboarding-related pages for 6 months.

Fresh from a 24 hour block, Neutral Good (talk · contribs) has continued causing disruptions:

1. Neutral Good used Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding as a club to attack those editors who did not want to engage in mediation with them. Assumptions of bad faith included:
   1. "This editor is making excuses to avoid mediation and probably would not participate in good faith under any circumstances." [118]
   2. "This involved administrator is already trying to sabotage mediation." [119]
2. Today Neutral Good did an extensive rewrite of waterboarding, without consensus.[120] The edit summary was, "This article contained 69 uses of the word "torture." Someone has been making a WP:POINT. I have reduced them." User:Akhilleus reverted this edit [121] and left an explanation at Talk:Waterboarding. [122]
3. Earlier User:Lar made some interesting observations. [123] [124]
4. Undeterred by the rejection of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding, Neutral Good has filed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding 2, simply omitting the names of the parties who did not agree with the first request.

It's time for the no-holds-barred warring over this article to be ended. One editor in particular is responsible for creating a battlezone by using every wikitactic available to try to get their way. Perhaps a topic ban would encourage them to develop other interests and become more familiar with Wikipedia's principles. Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A six month topic ban for this editor may not be a bad idea. If he is serious about contributing to this project, he will go and edit other articles during that time. If he is not, then it will be obvious what this is all about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six month community enforced topic ban proposed for Neutral Good (talk · contribs)[edit]

• Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OK Frankly, I think this is very lenient, but if NG wants to contribute constructively to another topic area, I won't object. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've only followed this a little bit, and very recently, but it seems like a clear cut case. By the way, I had to hunt to find the meaning of Topic Ban, found it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Note that the difference between the outright ban and the "community enforced" version is this: "Probation is used as an alternative to an outright topic ban in cases where the editor shows some promise of learning better behavior." Seems to lend credence to Akhilleus' concern, though I also wouldn't object. -Pete (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify regarding other suggestions that have come up since my !vote, I would equally support an outright topic ban, a community-enforced ban, for a period of anywhere from one to six months. No preference among those options, I'll respect the judgment of anyone who has a clearer vision of the path forward than myself within those parameters. -Pete (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like User:Neutral Good set up the account just to be disruptive to Waterboarding article and any editor who wants to write about the topic. I hope he can find other areas to edit besides things that have to do with torture. Igor Berger (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I support this too. We don't need editors like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lenient. Black Kite 07:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. henrik•talk 07:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lawrence § t/e 07:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Editors who were accused of making excuses to avoid mediation were in fact making excuses to avoid mediation. You hid behind your false sockpuppet accusations once more; those have now been proven false, to the entire extent that they can be proven false, without me bringing four forms of photo ID to a Wikipedia convention and putting on a slideshow to prove that I am not Bryan Hinnen. In a nutshell, you claim that you don't object to the concept of mediation; you just don't like the person who's proposing it. If that were true, you would proceed with mediation because it is carefully supervised dispute resolution that is intended to resolve a CONTENT DISPUTE. We have a content dispute, people, and this isn't going to make it go away; it will only delay its resolution for another six months. You tried to get rid of me with ArbCom and failed. You've tried to get rid of me three times with your RFCU witch hunts and failed each time. The only purpose this has served is delaying resolution of the content dispute, which may be your real purpose because you enjoy your blatant WP:NPOV violation and the America bashing that it provides cover for. Defining waterboarding as torture in the first six words of the article, when there's an active dispute over whether it's torture with mutiple prominent adherents on both sides (see Jimbo Wales quote in WP:WEIGHT) is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. As if that's not bad enough, using the word "torture" 69 times in an article is definitely WP:POINT in action. But you're shooting the messenger instead, and then you will continue to wonder why the academic community doesn't take Wikipedia seriously. Neutral Good (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sockpuppet allegations have not been "proven false". The checks run are inconclusive. That is not proof of falsehood. Do not twist my words around, please, you have been warned about this. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems about right for what seems to be a "vexatious litigant"--BozMo talk 11:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A claim like wikipedia isn't taken seriously in the academic community because waterboarding is described as torture - when there is zero academic debate about the fact that waterboarding is torture - is the final straw for me. The lack of credibility of wikipedia in the academic community has far more to do with the inclusion of nonsense such as a pretense that there is any serious (or notable) debate about the nature of waterboarding outside the realm of politics. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Although repeated CUs have been inconclusive (preface inserted so that Neutral Good doesn't waste time pointing it out and possibly get blocked by me for violating his warning not to twist my findings around) common consensus seems to be that Neutral Good is just the latest manifestation of long term banned user BryanFromPalatine, or if not, someone closely enough associated with Bryan to easily pass a DUCK test, so I'd suggest that this ban be framed to encompass Neutral Good as well as anyone else who appears here with the same MO, sufficient to pass a new DUCK test... It should also be framed to encompass anything at all torture related. Support whether that extension is endorsed or not but prefer if it is so we waste less time. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This edit, complete with the repeated removal of the word "torture" from literal quotes, to an article already under article probation, by a single-issue editor with an apparently indefatigable drive to own the article, who has been warned time and time again about disruptive editing, is the last straw. The community has bent over backwards to be fair to this individual over a course of many months: there has to be a limit to patience, and this, for me, was it. -- The Anome (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I am unclear why this tendentious, disruptive single-purpose account retains any editing privileges at all, given the totality of its history. I would strongly favor an indefinite block, and wold probably have applied one myself at the next blatantly bad-faith action this account undertook. That said, a 6-month topic ban is a lenient but acceptable alternative - provided that it's accompanied by a clear resolve that the next bad-faith, disruptive action, either during the topic ban or thereafter, will result in a lengthy or indefinite block. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, MastCell. Clearly, the topic ban needs to be accompanied with explicit wording about any further disruption, and the consequences of such disruption such as escalating blocks (1 week, 1 month, 3 months, etc,). If the editor takes the opportunity to reform, that would be great, and if he/she is not, then a site-ban would be the next step. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 2nd choice, I pity the editors of any new subject area that receives this editor's "attention". Foisting this disruption into a different arena just moves the problem around. R. Baley (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that were that to happen, the next step would be a permanent community ban. -- The Anome (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe a topic ban is far more effective than a block, assuming the at times gross incivility stops immedediately. Dorftrottel (harass) 18:41, February 25, 2008
• Support: He has clearly tested the patience of many editors, and a topic ban may be the method of choice. Further vios. at either waterboarding or any other article should be accompanied by an indef. block. seicer | talk | contribs 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Normally i would oppose such a lengthy ban but seen as this is a SPA, it may be good for this editor to make other helpful contributions to wikipedia not linked to this article without the accusations and political bias that continues even on this page, to prove that the account doesn't exist soley to push a POV on this particular article. --neonwhite user page talk 00:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• One month I would suggest a one month ban as the next step. That would give him time to cool off and consider our requirement for civility. If he doesn't meet our standards of behavior then, a permanent ban would be the appropriate next step and would be easier to gain approval for since the matter will still be fresh in peoples' minds. --agr (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban now in force[edit]

User:MastCell has now formally imposed the topic ban discussed above: see User talk:Neutral Good. -- The Anome (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks[edit]

Shibumi2 (talk · contribs), proven sock puppeteer and suspected sock of BryanFromPalatine, has reappeared on the scene. They are rewriting waterboarding to reduce the number of times the word torture is used.[125] It's as if this account is the alter ego of Neutral Good (talk · contribs). Neutral Good gets into hot water, and then suddenly, the same disruptive activity shifts to a different account. I suggest extending the above ban to cover Shibumi2 as well as any other duck-like accounts that carry on the same activity. Jehochman ^Talk 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good let them go work on something else and stop being fixated on one topic. It sure looks like these people have an alternative motive for editing Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support... but ensure that they are given notice of a possible topic ban upon first offence, and include a link to the prior disputes with Natural Good. seicer | talk | contribs 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose What is disruptive about my activity? Shibumi2 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The author of this edit is clearly not interested in writing an encyclopedia. This degree of mindless POV-pushing is beyond tolerable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If we think that Shibumi2 is an "alternate account" of Neutral Good, why are we bothering with topic bans? If someone is using sockpuppets to get around a block, we don't stop with topic bans. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As I said above (why are we using numbers here instead of bullets ? :) ) I think we should topic ban any account that passes the DUCK test. Which Shibumi2 does. So the ban should be worded that way if at all possible. ++Lar: t/c 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that, but if Shibumi2 passes the duck test, he's violating NG's block. I suppose I'm just saying that if I were an uninvolved administrator, we would not be discussing topic bans; we would be reviewing my indefinite block of both accounts. But I am involved in the "content dispute", such as it is. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nod. The community is doing an extraordinary amount of bending over backwards here. For which it is to be commended (everyone, give your neighbor a hug!). Probably won't work but no one can say the community didn't try. ++Lar: t/c 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I am all for loving my brother, and I was prepared to make some apologies as promised in the RFAR based on the RFCU "technical" findings by Lar, but this just takes the cake, and then stomps the boot into it above and beyond that. Tired Support. Lawrence § t/e 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take action here, under the provisions of the Arbitration case and the feedback above, and ban Neutral Good (talk · contribs) from all pages in all namespaces related to waterboarding (loosely construed) for 6 months for extensive disruption. Violation of the ban will result in an indefinite block, as will further disruptive editing outside the topic area or after expiration of the ban. I'm not going to take action regarding Shibumi2 (talk · contribs) at this point; I think there is suggestive, but not conclusive, evidence linking these two accounts. I am going to place Shibumi2 on notice that disruptive editing will result in a ban or block, but I don't see evidence of such disruption on Shibumi's part at present that would warrant such a sanction. I am open to hearing more evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry between Shibumi2 and Neutral Good which would warrant a revision of these sanctions, but for now I'm not seeing enough. I will post notice of these sanctions to the involved users' talk pages and log it at the Arbitration page. MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on Shibumi2, in case some were not aware. Neutral Good (as detailed in the RFCU/RFAR evidence) nominated him for adminship. Shibumi2 also goes out of his way to routinely push one of BryanFromPalatine's very specific agendas. Lawrence § t/e 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with ducks and AE[edit]

What is the usual practice with AE and dealing with ducks, if one decides to return to their original moulting, mating, and fishing habits with a shiny new set of feathers (in particular, if those feathers prove immune to technical Checkuser confirmation due to proxies or dynamic IPs)? Lawrence § t/e 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. Personally, I think these articles have seen enough abusive sockpuppetry etc that I'd be fairly quick to restrict or block an account that meets criteria. Are you referring to Shibumi2, or to potential new socks taking the place of Neutral Good? MastCell ^Talk 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to both. Lawrence § t/e 06:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be admins more familiar with the situation willing to block both Neutral Good and Shibumi2 as sock- or meatpuppets. I'm not quite there with the evidence I've seen here, though it is quite suggestive. I wouldn't object to such a block, but I don't see enough to take the responsibility of placing and defending such a block myself either. I'll watch Shibumi2 closely with regard to the terms of the probation, and I'm happy to stomp on any new socks which appear. MastCell ^Talk 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is simlar disruption by these users, then extending the ban to them will be appropriate. I move to close this discussion now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

approved

I'm requesting an extension of the remedies on Derek Smart. As currently stated, the SPA restrictions expired 5 months ago, the ban of User:Supreme Cmdr (Derek Smart) expires next month, and the ban on Derek Smart and his surrogates editing the Derek Smart page is infinite. Smart/Supreme Cmdr has continuously violated all of the remedies in this case that apply to him, including as recently as creating a role account to push his POV in January, and using IP's which resolve to his office's location to delete content from the page (violation of both his ban, and the article remedy), and harassing users on their talk pages who revert his damage. I'm requesting that the ban on Supreme Cmdr be extended to 1 year from the date of his last infraction, resetting with each infraction. His last infraction was yesterday, so instead of expiring next month his ban would reset with yesterday's infraction, to expire on 2/23/09. Should he evade his ban again, the ban should reset each time, with the 1 year countdown starting over. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean 2/23/09 right? SirFozzie (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do, sorry. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objection to this? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on RFAR this is somewhat unusual but it seems to be well-justified in this case. Thatcher 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there appears to be no objection here, or at AN/I, I'm going to notate the arbitration case that this has occurred. If that's incorrect, please feel free to correct me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok with me. Closing this thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Closed as hopelessly muddled and unreadable. Interested parties are urged to write a short, coherent, complete report with clearly applicable diffs.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User ScienceApologist has been conducting a discrediting attack campaign against me and other editors including "invitations to leave the topic", "toeing the line" borderline incivility and repeated denigrations of other editor's contributions, just now culminating in this edit. At least six more diffs from the last few days will be provided as time allows. WNDL42 (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote and for context, SA's attack is being supported in almost an identical pattern of incivil edits by USER:KWW; I will also be posting diffs here in which SA and KWW "echo" one another. WNDL42 (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional diffs posted by Wndl42 (in no particular order): (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), [(8), (9)this extended diff (10) contains six personal attacks as part of an extended and personally directed diatribe in which SA repeatedly sidesteps arguments, presents faulty sources, and when found out, SA resorts to further personal attacks to avoid acknowledging embarassing error. The personal attacks are combined with "milder" forms of denigration such as Straw Man attacks to conceal the fact that SA's deceptive use of a source he knew was faulty had been shown to refute his own argument. Some keywords to search for include "ignorance", "fuck" and those interested enough to actually follow this tortured diatribe will see incessant use of the "straw man" to discredit editors. The final extended diff (11) I will present here involves SA's similarly failed attempt (on and around January 9) to cite Rosenblum and Kuttner's "Quantum Enigma", and when I demonstrated that his use of that text similarly did not support his argument (in fact, contradicted his argument), SA attacked me on my talk page in the diff found above (ref "I'm sorry you are ignorant"). SA repeatedly uses personal attacks and low-grade denigrations as "smoke screens" to cover areas in which his purported knowledge of science is not equal to the image he attempts to maintain here on Wikipedia. The final diff supporting my complaint here will be posted within the hour. (...more coming)

In the extended diff (11) above, some keywords directed by SA at editors arguing against SA's faulty assertions include "bullshit", "if you cannot understand", "idiocy", and all in the context of what I think was some very real and intelligent debate over the topic. In this case, when SA's discrediting attack failed, when his source was shown to contradict him, and when his command of the topic from a physics standpoint became questionable, he visited my talk page and posted the "I'm sorry you are ignorant..." and "you should take some classes" comments. The incident came up shortly thereafter here at ArbCom (brought by another editor), SA was asked to apologize, did not do so, and here we are now. FYI all, I stayed completely out of that Arbcom, at the time I was still convinced that SA would change his behavior.. I was wrong. WNDL42 (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three diffs posted, only one seems to be from SA, and none seems to be particularly incivil. Civility, at least in Wikipedia, does not mean that one has to refrain from commenting on other edits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I am collecting the diffs -- it will require a couple of hours as I am otherwise engaged (it's a workday). The diffs added are to illustrate the context in which this long and pernicious history of low-level discrediting attacks are taking place. WNDL42 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has SA been informed of this thread? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that an anon IP (130.101.20.xxx) informed SA at 00:12, 26 February of this merit-less thread. R. Baley (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Strike: my bad that was a different poking incident. R. Baley (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)For the record: My comment was removed by Wndl42 here. I restored my comment here. Man, I sure don't like having my comments removed, is that another poke? R. Baley (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem with this diff. He has commented on your edit categorizing it as OR. Something we all sometimes do often unknowingly. The second KWW diff is not by KWW. Anthon01 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above...thanks. WNDL42 (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one would accuse me of being an advocate for SA - this complaint is without merit. I would like to note that this is the Arbitration Enforcement page - SA's ArbCom sanctions don't mention 'discrediting attacks', and I don't believe that discrediting someone's position through discourse is contrary to WP policy, nor should it be. Dlabtot (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would offer a contrasting view here, and suggest it be considered in the context of history here. WNDL42 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just notified SA. As a note, it is required to notify the other parties of an AE case so that they may be able to voice their opinion. seicer | talk | contribs 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another attempt to get me punished. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, when will someone stand up and stop this inane activity? Every 2-3 days, someone comes here and starts complaining that SA was mean to me or wasn't civil in his communications. And the cases are getting weaker and weaker and weaker! If those links are honestly the extent of the misbehavior, this is the worst case of poking that SA has been subjected too. Why doesn't someone stand up and punish these people who are obviously board shopping for an SA block? Baegis (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's annoying to you, but you do understand I get great amusement out of the constant attacks, because it's always the same. Whine about SA. The Anti-Science POV pushers are fun to watch. Back to real science articles.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin's comment is appreciated in that it allows an illustration of the larger point. Normally a comment such as this, accompanied by a personal denigration of the editor as an "Anti-Science POV pusher" would be accompanied by a diff. As it is not, and as Orangemarlin comments frequently in support of incivility, I would present the comment in this context:

Symptoms of groupthink In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Seriously, is this why you came here, to insult everyone that does not agree with you about SA's actions? If so, what a phenomenal waste of the community's time! I move to have this whole thing stricken. Baegis (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was merely responding to and contextualizing an unfounded personal attack against me here by Orangemarlin. Would you suggest I should have let it stand? WNDL42 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baegis, you accuse me above of being "inane" and "obviously board shopping", while I have been patient and patiently awaiting -- and encouraging a change in behavior from SA since he first attacked me MONTHS ago. My patience is exhausted and that is why I am here. WNDL42 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wndl42 - please don't waste time posting diffs by others. There is a case with remedies SA is subject to, but they do not apply generally to editors in the topic area. If the WP:AE admins need context for his diffs, we know how to use the history page. As one of the recent WP:AE admins to block SA under those sanctions, trust me that the diffs will be read when you finish presenting them. But in posting diffs by others, you are wasting your own time and ours.
• Everyone - SA is subject to the remedies in that case. Debating each other here before the diffs are fully presented is not helpful. I'm sure you all can find better things to be doing. GRBerry 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wndl42 stated in his opening that SA's edits "culminated" with this edit. "Culminated". . . reached it's highest point, the worst of the worst. Everybody is just supposed to sit around while he finds the kitchen sink to substantiate that non-claim? R. Baley (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, thanks -- this is my first time here. I'm not sure how to address personal attacks leveled against me here and that is the reason (or my excuse, if you will) I give for posting them. KWW was included for reasons I hope to make clear as we progress. I see no way of separating SA's extended discrediting attacks outside of the context of what I see (rightly or wrongly) as his "supporting cast". If there is a different forum for this I will take it there, on your advisement. WNDL42 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of yet, Kww has yet to be informed of the existence of this complaint. Still, he eagerly awaits his outing as a part of a vast conspiracy to insist on proper sourcing and legitimate science. I can imagine the diffs that Wndl42 will provide to bolster his complaint, and, in advance, will say that while I find debating things with Wndl42 to be one of the most frustrating things I have ever done on Wikipedia, I have remained civil. The diff he provided of me in the intro is probably the closest to a WP:CIVIL violation I have gotten to with him, and that still didn't cross the line.Kww (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R. Baley, in the context you present "culminated" it was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have conveyed the idea of "culminated" in the sense of a "last straw". Thanks for helping me clarify. WNDL42 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R. Baley, I'm sorry but I don't understand your objection to my removing this comment you made, as you had came back yourself to say it was unrelated to the present incident. Can you help me understant why it belongs here? WNDL42 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me sweetly request, with the utmost civility, that you not ever touch, refactor, or move, or remove my comment(s). The 3rd time will be the charm. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints here seem to be without merit. Case dismissed? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Wndl42 you need to relax and have WP:TEA. Go do some edits instead of getting angry with someone because they do not agree with you. Igor Berger (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We should not do that until Wndl42 finishes making the complaint. There is no reason for any discussion by anyone until the "more coming" note is removed by him/her from the list of diffs. GRBerry 21:21, 26 February 2008

• If this is all moot until more diffs are provided, then its best removed until then. What exactly is the point of having it hanging around? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This page must be like a sandbox. . .R. Baley (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: William M. Connolley archived this section, and I have restored it so that it can be closed and archived in the normal manner. If there is no damning evidence, there is no reason for everyone to be commenting here. Go do something else. This is not ANI. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I was about to close this as a clear non-violation of Arbcom rulings on SA, but Stephan beat me to it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

blocked and unblocked, has run its course

I am making a formal complaint about ScienceApologist because of his comment at [126]. I am co-director of the AA-EVP [127] and an active researcher in the field of EVP/ITC. He knows I monitor the EVP article, and so I am assuming that he intended his comments to me and my fellow researchers as a personal insult. This belief is further supported by a subsequent edit by SA: [128]

Alone, this event could be considered an editor having a bad day, but he has used the same tone many times and his active expression of this attitude in his edits has become an obstruction. At best, it make it very difficult to work in such an environment. There has been at least one judgement against him here [129].

Can you assist me in finding a way of stopping this direct assault on both my character ad the character of the thousands of people around the world who study paranormal subjects? Tom Butler (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized, struckthrough the comment, and am trying to move on. What more do you want from me? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...WP:WQA#Complaint against ScienceApologist? This is more of a civility issue that has since been corrected by SA retracting the comment and apologising. What more do you want? seicer | talk | contribs 02:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with seicer. If an editor ameliorates a problem, we do not punish. Do you have reason to believe that there will be imminent recurrences for which we must block the user to prevent harm? I don't see it. Also, what are you talking about? The alphabet soup has me confused. Jehochman ^Talk 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I received this comment on my talk page. Stating to someone that they are "making things up" is a very far reach of a personal attack. seicer | talk | contribs 02:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 96 hours for breaking arbcom civility and AGF restrictions. SA only struck the comment after the AN/AE thread was started[130]. Obviously the previous shortened block did not have the desired effect. SA is not allowed to be incivil and then strike comments - the arbcom case requires that SA is careful to AGF and be civil. In reviewing SA's other recent contribs, I noticed other problems I will note here shortly. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional aspects of SA's recent contribs stand out - I found many other problems, but here are two that characterise the user conduct.

SA is involved in a content dispute on What the Bleep Do We Know!?, and has been resorting to incivil behaviour, with snide remarks in the edit summary.[131]

Also, on Talk:Parapsychology#Problems_with_the_revised_lead, SA has been advocating that other users comments be "taken with a grain of salt"[132], and has repeated accusations of COI that have been decided by the community to be unsupported at WP:COIN (Archive 19). Note that her user page clearly states her potential for COI - so any editor can evaluate it for themself - SA does not need to use this in order to request that editors disregard her opinions. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary on What the Bleep Do We Know is not a violation of WP:CIVIL in any way. He is not making a comment about an editor ... he's making a comment about a project manager with a BS in Engineering Science that lists his job as "research physicist" in his press releases and bio. "Fraud" would have been quite appropriate.Kww (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt say that edit summary was a violation of WP:CIVIL - I said it was a snide remark, about a living person. How do you know that the person is not a Wikipedia editor? It was unnecessarily inflammatory, which lead to an edit war. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That edit summary is pretty borderline, and seems to fall well on the side of "direct expression of relevant opinion" rather than "sanctionable incivility". As SA withdrew the inappopriate comment in question and apologized, this block has a fairly punitive feel to it. I'm not going to undo it, but I'd urge reconsideration. MastCell ^Talk 04:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In the original WQA complaint, TomButler referred to SA's comments as "the sign of a sociopath" so there's bad blood on both sides of this dispute, and the OP came to WQA clearly seeking for SA to be severely punished (he originally asked for him to be banned from all paranormal articles). SA's comment was clearly not called for, but it was retracted and he apologized, and from what I've seen elsewhere on Wiki, such a comment would not normally be considered a blockable personal attack. Please reconsider.DanielEng (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this editor gets too many do overs. The comment was uncivil and he is under an Arbcom restriction. The edit summary seems at first borderline, because he wasn't commenting on an involved editor. I understand John Vandenberg's comment that it is still a personal attack and the editor could be a wiki editor. Anthon01 (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worth noting the time line here:

• Original comment made at 0237 (UTC) 22 Feb by user:ScienceApologist
• WQA report made at 2238 (UTC) 22 Feb by user:Tom Butler - Tom does not post a notification to ScienceApologist of the report
• user:Randy Blackamoor responds on WQA at 0043 (UTC) on 23 Feb. Tom respons on Randy's talk page 11 minutes later, and then on WQA after a further 2 minutes. Randy responds to Tom on WQA after another 2 minutes.
• Discussions then continue for more than another 25 hours involving user:Leadwind, user:Fill, user:Seicer, user:Wndl42, user:Anynobody, user:Martinphi, and user:DanielEng. During this time, no one thinks to inform ScienceApologist that a complainst has been filed at WQA.
• At 0203 (UTC) 24 Feb, Seicer notifies ScienceApologist on his talk page, and notes this fact in the WQA discussion 1 minute later.
• 13 minutes after notification, ScienceApoologist posts the first of three edits on WQA in response, which includes an undertaking to refactor. It seems that ScienceApologist responded as soon as he was made aware of the report, and had struck the comments by 0222 (UTC) 24 Feb [133] - thus the promised refactoring occurred within 4 minutes of leaving WQA.
• It turns out that Tom Butler posted a complaint to WP:AE about ScienceApologist 1 h 11 min before Seicer notified ScienceApologist of the WQA report. As with the WQA report, Tom did not post any notice for ScienceApologist of the AE report. Seicer notifies ScienceApologist of the AE report 15 minutes after the refactoring is made, and ScienceApologist responds on AE 1 minute later (at 0238) stating that he "apologized, struckthrough the comment, and am trying to move on". In issuing his 96 h block (at 0305), John Vandenberg states on AE that "SA only struck the comment after the AN/AE thread was started", which is technically true. However, John states on ScienceApologist's talk page that his "post on AN/AE mischaracterises your handling of this matter. You clearly did not intend to strike your comment prior to this." This is not supported by the evidence. The comment was struck prior to ScienceApologist being informed of the AE report, and occurred immediately after he was informed of the WQA report. John, you have unfairly judged ScienceApologist's actions here.
• Both WQA and AE procedures require the user being complained about to be notified via their talk page. Tom Butler did not do this in either case, and should be at least admonished for this failure. Depending on how commonly he has previously made WQA and AE reports (about which I have no idea), a more serious sanction may also be warranted.
• It is also worth noting that the talk page where the comment was made appears to have no request for ScienceApologist to refactor, either by Tom Butler himself or by any other contributor to that page.

In other words, ScienceApologist refactored immediately on being advised that a concern had been raised. Tom Butler, as the complaining party, did not request refactoring where the comment was made, nor on ScienceApologist's talk page> He did make reports at WQA and then later at AE, both without notifying ScienceApologist, whilst engaging in talk page discussion of the issue with both Randy Blackamoor and Raymond Arritt. John Vandenberg, you should immediately re-evaluate your block - I think you have made a mistake, and might even have not accorded ScienceApologist the assumption of good faith. You should also do something in response to Tom Butler's actions. Jay*Jay (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is at issue here is that per WP:RFAR(Martinphi-ScienceApologist), SA is not supposed to be incivil. Arbcom didnt say "you may be incivil provided that you strike your comments later". SA is supposed to be careful to avoid ABF and incivility. I don't see that. Do you see that?

When I pointed out that SA didnt strike the comments until it was raised here, I was not implying that my decision was primarily based on the fact that he had delayed striking until it was raised here. I was noting that SA's response here was mischaracterising the situation; SA made it sound as if this had already been dealt with, and that raising it on AN/AE was inappropriate. The fact is that it hadnt been corrected before that time.

The real problem is that SA is continually using "borderline" incivility, and it is usually being used to inappropriately dominate an article or discussion. Enough is enough. This talk comment is incivil to every single editor who might believe in that topic. That is no different from atheists going to talk pages about religions and saying that anyone who believes in the religion is a pack of morons. This apology is not good enough. Many other diffs are also unacceptable. Do you want me to list them all?? Talk pages are not an avenue for attacking other editors; talk pages are there to discuss the content, and should be done in a civil manner. If SA needs practise in debating skills, I am sure that the local Toastmasters will be welcoming -- wiki talk pages are not the place to exercise those skills.

The point of the arbcom case was the prevent this type of behaviour. It's not working; the behaviour exhibited at the time of the last block is still occurring. The last block was shortened, so I have been cautious and blocked for the same period as the previous block. The purpose of escalating duration of blocks is to persuade editors to improve the way they interact with others. Hopefully this block will convince SA that the mission to protect the wiki does not supersede the arbcom outcome that SA is under restrictions due to prior bad conduct. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: JV's comment "I was noting that SA's response here was mischaracterising the situation; SA made it sound as if this had already been dealt with, and that raising it on AN/AE was inappropriate."

Just so everyone's clear that SA didn't mischaracterize anything, a timeline:

• 00:52, 24 February --TB's original post to AE (this is the time stamp seen at top of thread).[134]

• 02:03, 24 February --Science Apologist is informed of the (1+ day old) WQA thread by seicer.

• 02:09, 24 February --TB Removes post at AE.[135]

• 02:16, 24 February 2008 --SA apologizes at WQA.[136]

• 02:22, 24 February 2008 --ScienceApologist strikes offending part of comment.[137]

• 02:27, 24 February --TB reposts but with original (00:52) time stamp.[138]

• 02:38, 24 February --ScienceApologist re-iterates apology at AE (11 minutes after 2nd AE post by TomButler).[139]

Submitted by R. Baley (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully endorse this block. John Vandenberg is spot on. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't endorse it at all. John Vandenberg seems to be working up a lather from very little indeed. At worst, we have something that merits a warning (and I'm not even sure about that). A 96-hour block is ludicrous. -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not endorse a 96h block. At the most, for using the word "moron" in a term that is not derogatory towards another editor, it would have warranted a warning if that. Most of those involved outside of SA have been those involved either with the article itself, Electronic Voice Phenomenon, or are involved in the Wikiproject itself and have a vested interest in seeing this editor leave the project or become blocked indef. seicer | talk | contribs 14:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_{Side note: I've left a note on the original poster's talk page regarding the lack of notices given to SA at WQA and AE. seicer | talk | contribs 14:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Taken alone and if the first time SA did this sort of thing, I'd agree, but SA has a long, long history of this sort of behavior of pushing the envelope and prior blocks have not worked, he continues in this sort of behavior. There is also a request for mediation in which he was the only one who didn't agree to it and another where he said he'd only agree if the mediator were a scientist. I'll look up the diffs later today on these. These show his unwillingness to work this out with others in this collaborative encyclopedia. That is why this block is justified. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a great big gap between unwilling to work with others and unwilling to work with people that think their radios are haunted. Perhaps Wikipedia could focus a bit on how to get such people to stop editing, and then the rest of us could have an easier time living under the constraints of WP:CIVIL.Kww (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That comment would be offensive to those people and shows that you do not understand that wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. The way to live with WP:CIVIL is to be civil, not cut out an entire group of people just because they don't agree with you. Not to mention SA's failure to apologize to Annalisa after several polite requests, including from a totally uninvolved admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will first apologize to SA for not notifying him. I had assumed an admin did that and I had no desire to risk his aggressive response back at me. I posted this complaint at the bottom and then realized it was supposed to be at the top. I gather I did that wrong as well--didn't think of the time stamp.

When I tried seeking advice from the etiquette page, I immediately ran into what seemed like a wisecrack. Already irritated that I had to take time away from my other duties, I was deeply saddened that an editor would respond in that fashion--attack the person not respond to the point. The discussion went downhill from there as many of the editors seemed to agree with SA and Blackamoor.

SA has been an abusive editor toward me and others since I began editing over a year ago. I have a hard time believing in his recantation. He later accused me of making up "all kinds of things": "AAEVP is not quite good enough to source this. They make up all kinds of things at their website. What would be best is if we found someone who didn't believe in EVP reporting on the classification scheme (per WP:FRINGE#Independent sources). Barring that, if we could find one of the people mentioned in our article (like Raudive, for example) who used the classification scheme, at least that would be more authoritative than some website that Tom Butler made up one day. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)" [140]. That is identical to saying that I lied. He did not strike that.[reply]

Some of you seem to be trying to excuse SA by finding fault with me. There is no doubt bad blood between us, but I am not the one who has decided to ... well it is hard too describe what without stepping over the edge. If you think it is okay to call any group of people morons, then perhaps we have a more systemic problem here. It is obvious that other editors take the lead from those who so easily ridicule others and follow with their own name calling. Are some of you saying that other editors should just get think skins? Don't forget that many unregistered people simply read the talk pages. What do you want them to see? Do you like anarchy? Tom Butler (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist emailed me, asking me to review this block. 12 hours is more than suffecient given the triviality of what he did, that he immediately revised it when asked, and that he wasn't notified about the thread on this page. As such, I've unblocked him. Raul654 (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's way more involved here than that one issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I have another issue to raise in regards to SA's behaviour. SA has been involved with mediation on cold fusion, which I am mediating. But his comments at my RfA, such as this, are deeply disturbing. "I was concerned (and still am concerned) that he was being way too accommodating of the fringe POV in the mediation." In other words, he feels that taking into consideration the opposing parties comments and edits are now too accommodating and is representative of bad faith. His comments are bordering upon misplaced criticism. I'm not looking for any administrative action, just a few notes in regards if this specifically is a continuing issue with SA? seicer | talk | contribs 22:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reply has since been posted. You can disregard the above. seicer | talk | contribs 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With a blocklog such as this, the community is showing a tremendous amount of leniency. SA is not helping his cause by getting dinged every other week. This needs to stop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following further consideration and a discussion with John Vandenberg, I hold the view that the block was justified - ScienceApologist was under an ArbCom restriction to be civil, and the edit in question was not. I am generally sympathetic to SA's views on science. Like him, I deplore the selective enforcement of WP:CIVIL while failing to effective enforce policies including (but not limited to) WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:TE. However, under the present circumstances, giving ammunition to tendentious editors is unwise (note: this comment does not relate to any particular user or circumstance); nevertheless, ignoring ArbCom restrictions is unacceptable. SA has done both, and for the latter, deserved to be blocked.
However, I also believe that much of the controversy here was caused not be the intemperate words of SA, but rather by the poorly expressed initial explanations provided by John Vandenberg. By justifying the block based on the timing of the striking of the comments - after this thread had begun - and failing to recognise that SA had not been notified, John created the appearance of an injustice. John's explanation on SA's talk page is worse, because it draws a conclusion about intent that the evidence above refutes. If John had stated that the block was for the ArbCom violation, that striking the comment did not matter because it was the original post that was the violation, and that other examples were available, much of this discussion could have been avoided. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]