Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:44, 29 May 2007

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Edit this section for new requests

add new reports to the top of the section

User:Reddi

Reddi (talk · contribs) is back after what I am told is a one year probation on editing science-related articles. His arbitration case can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2 with a final decision in arbitration case that was a finding of Disruptive editing, 3RR violations, Uncommunicative, Edit warring.

New examples are:

Uncommunicative editing and adding of non-sourced POV edits wile ignoring extensive talk on subject and ignoring requests to justify edits: [1] [2] [3]

3RR violations and Edit warring: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

It had been noted in the previous case that Reddi seemed to have an MO of supporting his "mission to give minority or fringe views in science" by changing "the main articles in the field" in a way "which may mislead our readers". Reddi showed a continuation of this MO when he went on an "jag" consisting of 89 individual edits in an 11 hr period that totally rewrote the basic article on Radio astronomy that took the article from this [13] to this [14]. The edits consist of a massive POV-push to re-define Radio astronomy (including re-writing the basic definition) so that purported observations by Nikola Tesla (re:Teslascope) could be couched as "Radio astronomy".

Many notifications in talk citing continual disruptive editing consisting of continually reformatting references to non-standard format: [15]

Halfblue 03:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you seem to have something against me ... several people don't.

The prior arbitration case is over. The previous terms have expired.

I am trying to be communicative (such as in this link Talk:Teslascope history) ... editing and adding sourced NPOV edits while engagining in extensive talk.

J. D. Redding 03:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator response: There appears to be some recurrence of some of the problematic editing patterns noted in the case, but as you point out, the one-year probation and revert parole both expired a couple of months ago. The remedies in the decision also provide that "any three administrators, for good cause, may extend either Reddi's ban [sic] or probation in one year increments," but it is not clear to me that this can be done after the original one-year term has expired. If all the remedies have expired, you would have to bring this to ANI or to dispute resolution as a new matter rather than treat it as arbitration enforcement (which of course is not to say that the prior history would be ignored). Leaving here for additional admin input. Newyorkbrad 03:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Infinity0

Infinity0 (talk · contribs) started to make reverts without discussing them on talk pages. On May 24 he made three such reverts 1, 2 and 3. Two of them were on anarchism related pages. His arbitration case can be found here.

Also, he created an account called AnarchoKapitalismus just for mocking anarcho-capitalism. I'm not sure whether that can be put under "inappropriate insertion of anarchy related material", but I think it violates WP:NOT and constitutes disruptive behavior. -- Vision Thing -- 13:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for edit number one; I was too hasty. I have since changed it to hopefully a more NPOV version which includes material I deleted.

For edit number two, changes have been discussed on the talk page of a different article, Talk:Anarchism - the same issues apply. Also, Vision Thing reverted without discussion first, and he reverted not only me but another user - see the edit's history and talk page. I posted my reasons for my edits on the talk page and the edit summary, and there was no response by Vision Thing at all before he reverted. So, Vision Thing is requesting that I discuss changes on the talk page, when he is the one that made the first discussionless revert? Hypocritical and gaming the system - just because I happen to be on revert parole.

For edit number three, the Lysander Spooner article, I was reverting the sockpuppet of a banned user. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego.

I would like to point out that the vast majority of cases I have been discussing reverts on talk pages.

Around 1 in 10* of Vision Thing's past 500 (and very likely even more, but i didn't bother to check) edits have been reversions of various articles to versions which supports his own point of view after editors have attempt to correct to NPOV - see [16]. All the above edits listed of mine were cancellations of Vision Thing's original unexplained and undiscussed reversions; in particular the edits to Anarchism have been agreed with by multiple editors, see Talk:Anarchism#Culling_the_source-spam.

My article at User:AnarchoKapitalismus is a direct response to Vision Thing's own User:Vision Thing/Anarcho-capitalism which he lifted from banned user User:Anarcho-capitalism.

I have followed all of my arbitration requests such as 1RR. My activity is only on appropriate pages which my arbitration allows. -- infinity0 21:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

*counting "rv" in edits; not including strings of "content edits" which are actually reverts, such as this

You have removed 26774 bytes (almost half of the article) of the sourced content from Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without even a word of explanation on discussion page. You were put on parole just because of such edits. Your edits to Anarchism are also troubling but I haven't reported you for them. -- Vision Thing -- 15:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Those bytes were POV-pushing from banned sockpuppet User:Anarcho-capitalism, and must be removed because they severely unbalance the article. You seem to paint a picture of me being some sort of fanatical POV-pusher but it is you who has been watching numerous articles and reverting edits you do not like. My edits to anarchism have either been overwhelmingly supported by people from WP:3O whose input you ignored; or they have been minor edits to improve balance, but you delete even those anyway without any sort of reasonable explanation. -- infinity0 12:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true. That content was in the article before User:Anarcho-capitalism started to edit it (easily established from this old version of the article and article's history). -- Vision Thing -- 13:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dacy69

Dacy69 has violated his parole:

Dacy69 is on Arbcom parole, stating that he has to accompany ever revert with a comment on the talk page: [17]

He violated it on Armenian-Tatar massacres. He reverted [18] yet left no response on the talk page: [19]Azerbaijani 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I should not leave message if this is vandalism or edit by newcomer who destroyed the page And it is obvious that edit was done in violation of wiki stadard on page you mentioned--Dacy69 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not vandalism Dacy: [20] The user simply added a quote from a book, it was misplaced, but it certainly wasnt vandalism and could easily have been corrected, it didnt "destroy" the page, and it wasnt in violation of Wiki standards at all. The user is registered and has so far made three edits (including the one Dacy reverted) and so far he has committed no vandalism, and the information he/she has added has been sourced.Azerbaijani 15:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I can argue about this edit on relevant talkpage. But it definitely does not fit the proper form. Anyway, another his edits was reverted and not by me [21]. But it will be nice if you teach him some Wiki rules as you like doing that.--Dacy69 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

He hasnt broken any Wiki rules and he has not committed a single act of vandalism yet.Azerbaijani 16:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Selket issued a warning [22] but says he is unsure what response another admin may have.Azerbaijani 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This was resolved by the admin at 3RR board, Dacy69 was warned: [23] Grandmaster 05:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator response: Resolved for now. All parties to the Armenia-Azerbaijan case are strongly urged to abide by their revert paroles, work together constructively, and avoid edit-warring. Newyorkbrad 03:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

Arbcom parole violation on Sutton Coldfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting simple vandalism. However he reverted edits of other users to Sutton Coldfield four times in 10 minutes.

Previous version reverted to: 15:59, 21 May 2007
1st revert: 09:52, 22 May 2007
2nd revert: 09:57, 22 May 2007
3rd revert: 09:59, 22 May 2007
4th revert: 10:02, 22 May 2007

The admin who dealt with the AIV report did not class the edits as simple vandalism, as can be seen here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, rather. "POV vandalism" is not a concept that really makes sense, especially not here, which is clearly a content dispute between differing points of view. I scarcely count as uninvolved with this editor, however, and am reluctant to take any action myself. Moreschi ^Talk 12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The revert parole expired after one year, see here. However, this looks like it could be reported as a standard 3RR violation. In addition, I recently banned Andy from adding or removing infoboxes or editing infobox templates for a month [24]. I am extending this to a month from today and expanding it to ban editing of infoboxes and their contents as well. The ban may be enforced by blocking if necessary. Thatcher131 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"I am extending this" - On what grounds? 3RR excludes fixing vandalism. I note that you still ignore requests to answer the point I put to you on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 13:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

However, if you look at this, he was also banned for a year. So, presumably, the one revert per week limit for one year started after the one-year ban ended, and is therefore stll ongoing. My thoughts have been posted on the article talk page. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally arbitration remedies are served concurrently unless specifically stated. See here for more. Thatcher131 15:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So why bother rule separately? It would seem obvious to me that if he is banned for a year, in that time he will not be able to revert! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Penis" and "fuck you" edits are vandalism. A dispute over the description of a town is not vandalism but a content dispute, and there is no such thing as "POV vandalism." (Hint, POV describes a content dispute. You may wish to note that an admin who had a habit of blocking people for "POV vandalism" gave up his adminship after overwhelming criticism for this tactic.) There are many forms of dispute resolution. You can file a checkuser request and ask to have the user blocked as a sockpuppet; you can file an RFC; you can report him to the admins' noticeboard; you can ask for mediation. If mediation and RFC fail you can file an arbitration request. (You might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors, in which an anonymous editor who held very strong views on certain topics and had a problem with incivility and original research was eventually banned, after an RFC failed to modify her behavior.) Edit warring and reverting is not a form of dispute resolution. As always, I invite review by any other admin. Thatcher131 13:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

None of which answer my question: "On what grounds?" Andy Mabbett 13:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You weren't fixing vandalism, you were involved in a content dispute. Thatcher131 13:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed, but that still doesn't answer my question: How is that grounds for extending your infobox ban (itself disputed...)? Andy Mabbett 13:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a definate ruling on this please? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator response Under this clarification, Pigsonthewing's revert parole remains in effect until 25 January 2008 (one year fromt the expiration of his one year ban). I am therefore rescinding the above topical bans, as the revert parole is a better way to deal with this problem. Action will not be taken for reverts made before this date, because he has not been warned. Future violation of the one revert per article per week limit may be reported here or at the 3RR noticeboard for blocking. Note that the appropriate response is generally brief blocking, escalaiting as necessary, and that banning is a last resort. When making reports, please include a link to the arbitration case. Thatcher131 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Eupator

Arbcom parole violation on Paytakaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Eupator (talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Eupator_placed_on_revert_parole. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. However he reverted legitimate edits of other users to Paytakaran twice in less than 7 days.

Previous version reverted to: 13:39, 27 April 2007

1st revert: 20:11, 18 May 2007
2nd revert: 17:48, 22 May 2007

Reported by: Grandmaster 07:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved, see: [25] Grandmaster 10:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist 2

In addition to my statement below following our ArbCom case, I feel that User:ScienceApologist is now not constructively building consensus by cooperating with other editors.

11 May, removes my disputed tag (and request for citations) without discussion, nor consensus being reached.[26]
22 May, removes my dispiuted tag (and request for citations) after discussion, but no consensus on new text,[27]
22 May, Tells me that "I will ignore any more lines of inquiry coming from you",[28]
22 May, removes my disputed tag (and request for citations) for a third time,[29] even though I expressed dissatisfaction with the text, no citation was forthcoming, and my indicating to provide more details.[30]
22 May, another editor disputes the text,[31], again.[32]
23 May, removes disputed tag, (and request for citations) without discussion, nor consensus being reached, for the fifth time.[33]

While I appreciate that ScienceApologist wishes to improve the article, it is not for one editor to decided that text is no longer disputed, nor that consensus is not require, and that they solely decided the version of text for an article. --Iantresman 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator response: ScienceApologist is requested to respond to these allegations. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ian is a tendentious litigator and has demonstrated to the point of absurdity that he will hound me until he either gets his way or is himself blocked. His edit summaries are bogus and trumped up to the point of absurdity. I will show this to be the case and present evidence that Ian has been violating his probation consistently since his last ban if you wish, but I try my best to ignore this kind of bullshit unless I get an indication that some administrator actually cares enough to make a thorough investigation of this ongoing nonsense. --ScienceApologist 04:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, for the good of the encyclopedia, I ask you to refrain from unnecessarily strong language. People get banned for incivility around here. It seems to me that you've been given leeway because your expertise is valued (as it should be.) Push it too far, and the Committee may feel compelled to uphold the civility policy at the expense of content.Proabivouac 05:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Aivazovsky

Per ArbCom decision, User:Aivazovsky is under a revert parole and is required to leave comments on the talk page for the edits he makes. However, User:Aivazovsky has recently moved [34] the category Turkophobia to category Anti-Turkism without any discussion on the talk pages. I would like remind here that Turkophobia is an accepted scholarly term. Moreover, User:Aivazovsky has also recently edited [35] the article Varoujan Garabedian, removing the new Anti-Turkism (old Turkophobia) category from the page about a person convicted of terrorist attacks against civilians, again without any discussion on the talk page. He has done the same at ASALA, [36], again without any comments on talk page. And a 3rd one, at Askeran clash here [37], again no comments. That's 3 pages! Please, enforce the decisions of ArbCom with regards to User:Aivazovsky as the earlier leniency, such as here [38] did not help to solve the problem of editing or reverting without discussion. Atabek 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator response: I regret having allowed this report to become stale. At this point I am hesitant to investigate and impose a block for edits more than a week old. Please advise if there have been any more recent or if there are any future violations. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 03:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist

User:ScienceApologist has just called me "a complete dick"[39], again.[40], contrary to No personal attacks and WP:CIVIL.

A previous ArbCom case found that "ScienceApologist is uncivil" and "has strongly and repeated criticized Iantresman with ad hominem attacks"[41]

Despite the ArbCom caution,[42] ScienceApologist subsequently:

Call me a "bean-counter, not a researcher"[43], that I "lied",[44], and that I "lied" again,[45] (reported previously)[46]
Called me the "the Ian peacock"[47] which was noted by another Admin [48]

And just recently:

I am "a confirmed POV-pusher"[49]
Having "professed your devotion to this particular guru"[50] (not a tone of writing I'd use)

I was wondering how many personal attacks, incivility, cautions and warnings, need be reached before some positive action is taken? --Iantresman 17:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ever since announcing that he's leaving Wikipedia, Ian has been acting like a complete dick, inserting himself into conversations that have nothing to do with him explaining that he's doing it simply to enforce just desserts. Previous to this, Ian was acting in a very disruptive manner at Talk:Plasma cosmology, in violation of his probation, insisting on the insertion of an unreliable source. He had archived a deleted article in his user space in violation of the spirit and practice of WP:DRV and WP:USER. Now he has decided to escalate his abuse to the level of noticeboard. --ScienceApologist 13:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And in all this time, I've never been derogatory to you, reverted to calling you names, nor used your qualifications, education or affiliations, to question your editing. And while we may often disagree on content, that is hardly justification for being uncivil. --Iantresman 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to report such claims. Please calm down. Sr 13 04:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless they violate a previous ArbCom ruling? [51][52]

Administrator response: I regret that this report was not addressed earlier. ScienceApologist is strongly cautioned to avoid abusive language, irrespective of his opinion of other editors' conduct. Newyorkbrad 03:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Header}}
-#REDIRECT [[User::Dachshund]]
+<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page  - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-7  DoUnreplied-Yes  Target-Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive6--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
+[[Category:Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot]]
+=Edit this section for new requests=
+:''add new reports to the '''top''' of the section''
+==[[User:Reddi]]==
+{{User|Reddi}} is back after what I am told is a one year probation on editing science-related articles. His arbitration case can be found at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2]] with a final decision in arbitration case that was a finding of ''Disruptive editing'', ''3RR violations'', ''Uncommunicative'', ''Edit warring''.
+New examples are:
+*Uncommunicative editing and adding of non-sourced POV edits wile ignoring extensive talk on subject and ignoring requests to justify edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teslascope&diff=134092767&oldid=134076493] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teslascope&diff=134106923&oldid=134099507] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teslascope&diff=134227981&oldid=134218010]
+*3RR violations and Edit warring: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_astronomy&diff=130947213&oldid=129575561] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_astronomy&diff=131856465&oldid=130947595] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_astronomy&diff=131885260&oldid=131863401] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_astronomy&diff=131940083&oldid=131914891] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_astronomy&diff=132006114&oldid=131995901] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_astronomy&diff=132030549&oldid=132006600] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_astronomy&diff=132258503&oldid=132222564] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_astronomy&diff=132422834&oldid=132420335] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_astronomy&diff=132431726&oldid=132431104]
+*It had been [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2#Statements by others|noted in the previous case]] that Reddi seemed to have an MO of supporting his "''mission to give minority or fringe views in science''" by changing "''the main articles in the field"'' in a way "''which may mislead our readers''". Reddi showed a continuation of this MO when he went on an "jag" consisting of 89 individual edits in an 11 hr period that totally rewrote the basic article on [[Radio astronomy]] that took the article from this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_astronomy&oldid=131995901] to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_astronomy&oldid=132099279]. The edits consist of a massive POV-push to re-define Radio astronomy (including re-writing the basic definition) so that purported observations by [[Nikola Tesla]] (re:[[Teslascope]]) could be couched as "Radio astronomy".
+*Many notifications in talk citing continual disruptive editing consisting of continually reformatting references to non-standard format: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reddi&oldid=134111889]
+[[User:Halfblue|Halfblue]] 03:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
+:: Sorry you seem to have something against me ... several people don't.
+:: The prior arbitration case is over. The previous terms have expired.
+:: I am trying to be communicative (such as in this link [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teslascope&action=history Talk:Teslascope history]) ... editing and adding sourced NPOV edits while engagining in extensive talk.
+:: [[User:Reddi|J. D. Redding]] 03:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
+:'''Administrator response''': There appears to be some recurrence of some of the problematic editing patterns noted in the case, but as you point out, the one-year probation and revert parole both expired a couple of months ago. The remedies in the decision also provide that "any three administrators, for good cause, may extend either Reddi's ban [sic] or probation in one year increments," but it is not clear to me that this can be done after the original one-year term has expired. If all the remedies have expired, you would have to bring this to ANI or to dispute resolution as a new matter rather than treat it as arbitration enforcement (which of course is not to say that the prior history would be ignored). Leaving here for additional admin input. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 03:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
+==[[User:Infinity0]]==
+{{User|Infinity0}} started to make reverts without discussing them on talk pages. On May 24 he made three such reverts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-capitalism&diff=prev&oldid=133187148 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism&diff=prev&oldid=133186168 2] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lysander_Spooner&diff=next&oldid=133060991 3]. Two of them were on anarchism related pages. His arbitration case can be found [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0#Remedies|here]].
+Also, he created an account called [[User:AnarchoKapitalismus|AnarchoKapitalismus]] just for mocking anarcho-capitalism. I'm not sure whether that can be put under "inappropriate insertion of anarchy related material", but I think it violates [[WP:NOT]] and constitutes disruptive behavior. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision Thing --]] 13:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
+:I apologise for edit number one; I was too hasty. I have since changed it to hopefully a more NPOV version which includes material I deleted.
+:For edit number two, changes have been discussed on the talk page of a different article, [[Talk:Anarchism]] - the same issues apply. Also, Vision Thing reverted without discussion first, and he reverted not only me but another user - see the edit's history and talk page. I posted my reasons for my edits on the talk page and the edit summary, and there was no response by Vision Thing at all before he reverted. So, Vision Thing is requesting that I discuss changes on the talk page, when he is the one that made the first discussionless revert? Hypocritical and gaming the system - just because I happen to be on revert parole.
+:For edit number three, the Lysander Spooner article, I was reverting the sockpuppet of a banned user. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego]].
+:I would like to point out that the vast majority of cases I have been discussing reverts on talk pages.
+:Around 1 in 10* of Vision Thing's past 500 (and very likely even more, but i didn't bother to check) edits have been reversions of various articles to versions which supports his own point of view after editors have attempt to correct to NPOV - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Vision+Thing]. All the above edits listed of mine were '''cancellations''' of Vision Thing's original unexplained and undiscussed reversions; in particular the edits to [[Anarchism]] have been agreed with by multiple editors, see [[Talk:Anarchism#Culling_the_source-spam]].
+:My article at [[User:AnarchoKapitalismus]] is a direct response to Vision Thing's own [[User:Vision Thing/Anarcho-capitalism]] which he lifted from banned user [[User:Anarcho-capitalism]].
+:I have followed all of my arbitration requests such as 1RR. My activity is only on '''appropriate pages''' which my arbitration allows. -- [[User:Infinity0|<span style="color:red;">infinity</span>]]'''[[User_talk:Infinity0|<span style="color:red;">0</span>]]''' 21:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
+:''*counting "rv" in edits; not including strings of "content edits" which are actually reverts, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=132299525&oldid=131615560 this]''
+::You have removed 26774 bytes (almost half of the article) of the sourced content from {{Article|Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism}} without even a word of explanation on discussion page. You were put on parole just because of such edits. Your edits to [[Anarchism]] are also troubling but I haven't reported you for them. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision Thing --]] 15:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
+:::Those bytes were POV-pushing from banned sockpuppet [[User:Anarcho-capitalism]], and must be removed because they severely unbalance the article. You seem to paint a picture of me being some sort of fanatical POV-pusher but it is you who has been watching numerous articles and reverting edits you do not like. My edits to anarchism have either been overwhelmingly supported by people from [[WP:3O]] whose input you ignored; or they have been minor edits to improve balance, but you delete even those anyway without any sort of reasonable explanation. -- [[User:Infinity0|<span style="color:red;">infinity</span>]]'''[[User_talk:Infinity0|<span style="color:red;">0</span>]]''' 12:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
+::::That is simply not true. That content was in the article before User:Anarcho-capitalism started to edit it (easily established from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism&oldid=80019015 this old version] of the article and article's history). [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision Thing --]] 13:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
+==[[User:Dacy69]]==
+Dacy69 has violated his parole:
+Dacy69 is on Arbcom parole, stating that he has to accompany ever revert with a comment on the talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dacy69#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FArmenia-Azerbaijan_2]
+He violated it on [[Armenian-Tatar massacres]]. He reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian-Tatar_massacres&diff=133030837&oldid=132979171] yet left no response on the talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian-Tatar_massacres&action=history][[User:Azerbaijani|Azerbaijani]] 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
+I should not leave message if this is vandalism or edit by newcomer who destroyed the page And it is obvious that edit was done in violation of wiki stadard on page you mentioned--[[User:Dacy69|Dacy69]] 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
+:This is not vandalism Dacy: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian-Tatar_massacres&diff=133030837&oldid=132979171] The user simply added a quote from a book, it was misplaced, but it certainly wasnt vandalism and could easily have been corrected, it didnt "destroy" the page, and it wasnt in violation of Wiki standards at all. The user is registered and has so far made three edits (including the one Dacy reverted) and so far he has committed no vandalism, and the information he/she has added has been sourced.[[User:Azerbaijani|Azerbaijani]] 15:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
+::I can argue about this edit on relevant talkpage. But it definitely does not fit the proper form. Anyway, another his edits was reverted and not by me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Revolutionary_Army&diff=128924536&oldid=128875262]. But it will be nice if you teach him some Wiki rules as you like doing that.--[[User:Dacy69|Dacy69]] 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
+:::He hasnt broken any Wiki rules and he has not committed a single act of vandalism yet.[[User:Azerbaijani|Azerbaijani]] 16:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
+Selket issued a warning [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dacy69#Revert_to_Armenian-Tatar_massacres] but says he is unsure what response another admin may have.[[User:Azerbaijani|Azerbaijani]] 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
+: This was resolved by the admin at 3RR board, Dacy69 was warned: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN3#User:Dacy69_reported_by_User:Azerbaijani_.28Result:_no_action.29] [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 05:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
+::'''Administrator response''': Resolved for now. All parties to the Armenia-Azerbaijan case are strongly urged to abide by their revert paroles, work together constructively, and avoid edit-warring. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 03:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
+==[[User:Pigsonthewing]]==
+* Arbcom parole violation on {{Article|Sutton Coldfield}}.
+{{User|Pigsonthewing}} has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Pigsonthewing_revert_limitation|here]]. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting simple vandalism. However he reverted edits of other users to [[Sutton Coldfield]] four times in 10 minutes.
+* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sutton_Coldfield&oldid=132461186 15:59, 21 May 2007]
+* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sutton_Coldfield&diff=132645012&oldid=132643018 09:52, 22 May 2007]
+* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sutton_Coldfield&diff=132645507&oldid=132645393 09:57, 22 May 2007]
+* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sutton_Coldfield&diff=132645684&oldid=132645569 09:59, 22 May 2007]
+* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sutton_Coldfield&diff=132646052&oldid=132645728 10:02, 22 May 2007]
+The admin who dealt with the AIV report did not class the edits as simple vandalism, as can be seen [[User talk:Pigsonthewing#Your AIV report|here]]. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></font> 12:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
+:Agreed, rather. "POV vandalism" is not a concept that really makes sense, especially not here, which is clearly a content dispute between differing points of view. I scarcely count as uninvolved with this editor, however, and am reluctant to take any action myself. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
+::The revert parole expired after one year, see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Pigsonthewing_revert_limitation|here]].  However, this looks like it could be reported as a standard 3RR violation.  In addition, I recently banned Andy from adding or removing infoboxes or editing infobox templates for a month [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FPigsonthewing&diff=130963412&oldid=130962802].  I am extending this to a month from today and expanding it to ban editing of infoboxes and their contents as well. The ban may be enforced by blocking if necessary. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
+:::"''I am extending this''" - On what grounds? 3RR excludes fixing vandalism. I note that you still ignore requests to answer the point I put to you on my talk page. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 13:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
+:::However, if you look at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Pigsonthewing banned for one year|this]], he was also banned for a year.  So, presumably, the one revert per week limit for one year started ''after'' the one-year ban ended, and is therefore stll ongoing.  My thoughts have been posted on the [[talk:Sutton Coldfield|article talk page]].  [[User:lewisskinner|'''<font color="red">L.J.Skinner'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:lewisskinner|<font color="green">''wot''</font>]]|[[Special:Contributions/lewisskinner|<font color="blue">''I did''</font>]]</sup> 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
+:::::Generally arbitration remedies are served concurrently unless specifically stated.  See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_renewal_of_revert_parole_for_User:Pigsonthewing|here]] for more. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 15:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
+::::::So why bother rule separately?  It would seem obvious to me that if he is banned for a year, in that time he will not be able to revert!  [[User:lewisskinner|'''<font color="red">L.J.Skinner'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:lewisskinner|<font color="green">''wot''</font>]]|[[Special:Contributions/lewisskinner|<font color="blue">''I did''</font>]]</sup> 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
+::::"Penis" and "fuck you" edits are vandalism.  A dispute over the description of a town is not vandalism but a content dispute, and there is no such thing as "POV vandalism."  (Hint, POV ''describes'' a content dispute.  You may wish to note that an admin who had a habit of blocking people for "POV vandalism" gave up his adminship after overwhelming criticism for this tactic.)  There are many forms of dispute resolution.  You can file a checkuser request and ask to have the user blocked as a sockpuppet; you can file an RFC; you can report him to the admins' noticeboard; you can ask for mediation.  If mediation and RFC fail you can file an arbitration request.  (You might be interested in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors]], in which an anonymous editor who held very strong views on certain topics and had a problem with incivility and original research was eventually banned, after an RFC failed to modify her behavior.)  Edit warring and reverting is '''not''' a form of dispute resolution.  As always, I invite review by any other admin. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 13:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
+:::::None of which answer my question: "On what grounds?" [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 13:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
+::::::You weren't fixing vandalism, you were involved in a content dispute. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 13:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
+:::::::Disputed, but that '''''still''''' doesn't answer my question: How is that grounds for extending your infobox ban (itself disputed...)? [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 13:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
+:Can we have a definate ruling on this please?  [[User:lewisskinner|'''<font color="red">L.J.Skinner'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:lewisskinner|<font color="green">''wot''</font>]]|[[Special:Contributions/lewisskinner|<font color="blue">''I did''</font>]]</sup> 23:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Administrator response'''  Under [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=133920319&oldid=133919347 this clarification], Pigsonthewing's revert parole remains in effect until 25 January 2008 (one year fromt the expiration of his one year ban). I am therefore rescinding the above topical bans, as the revert parole is a better way to deal with this problem. Action will not be taken for reverts made before this date, because he has not been warned.  Future violation of the one revert per article per week limit may be reported here or at the [[WP:AN3|3RR noticeboard]] for blocking.  Note that the appropriate response is generally brief blocking, escalaiting as necessary, and that banning is a last resort.  When making reports, please include a link to the arbitration case. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
+==[[User:Eupator]]==
+* Arbcom parole violation on {{Article|Paytakaran}}.
+{{User|Eupator}} has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Eupator_placed_on_revert_parole]]. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. However he reverted legitimate edits of other users to [[Paytakaran]] twice in less than 7 days.
+* Previous version reverted to:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paytakaran&oldid=126355190 13:39, 27 April 2007]
+* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paytakaran&diff=131800762&oldid=127109447 20:11, 18 May 2007]
+* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paytakaran&diff=132678675&oldid=132643378 17:48, 22 May 2007]
+Reported by: [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 07:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
+: Resolved, see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Eupator_reported_by_User:Grandmaster_.28Result:24_hours.29] [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] 10:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
+==[[User:ScienceApologist]] 2==
+In addition to [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:ScienceApologist|my statement below]] following our [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist_cautioned ArbCom case], I feel that [[User:ScienceApologist]] is now not constructively [[WP:Consensus|building consensus]] by cooperating with other editors.
+*11 May, removes my disputed tag (and request for citations) without discussion, nor consensus being reached.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&diff=130086967&oldid=130051442]
+*22 May, removes my dispiuted tag (and request for citations) after discussion, but no consensus on new text,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&diff=132707018&oldid=132682055]
+*22 May, Tells me that "I will ignore any more lines of inquiry coming from you",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plasma_cosmology&diff=132706934&oldid=132699830]
+*22 May, removes my disputed tag (and request for citations) for a third time,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&diff=132722845&oldid=132721016] even though I expressed dissatisfaction with the text, no citation was forthcoming, and my indicating to provide more details.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plasma_cosmology&action=history]
+*22 May, another editor disputes the text,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&diff=132729518&oldid=132722845], again.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plasma_cosmology#This_article_is_POV.27ed_and_non-factual]
+*23 May, removes disputed tag, (and request for citations) without discussion, nor consensus being reached, for the fifth time.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&diff=132916326&oldid=132769285]
+While I appreciate that ScienceApologist wishes to improve the article, it is not for one editor to decided that text is no longer disputed, nor that consensus is not require, and that they solely decided the version of text for an article. --[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
+:'''Administrator response''': ScienceApologist is requested to respond to these allegations. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 03:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
+::Ian is a tendentious litigator and has demonstrated to the point of absurdity that he will hound me until he either gets his way or is himself blocked. His edit summaries are bogus and trumped up to the point of absurdity. I will show this to be the case and present evidence that Ian has been violating his probation consistently since his last ban if you wish, but I try my best to ignore this kind of bullshit unless I get an indication that some administrator actually cares enough to make a thorough investigation of this ongoing nonsense. --[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] 04:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
+:::ScienceApologist, for the good of the encyclopedia, I ask you to refrain from unnecessarily strong language. People get banned for incivility around here. It seems to me that you've been given leeway because your expertise is valued (as it should be.) Push it too far, and the Committee may feel compelled to uphold the civility policy at the expense of content.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 05:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
+==[[User:Aivazovsky]]==
+Per ArbCom decision, [[User:Aivazovsky]] is under a revert parole and is required to leave comments on the talk page for the edits he makes. However, [[User:Aivazovsky]] has recently moved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3ATurkophobia&diff=132111351&oldid=128184489] the category Turkophobia to category Anti-Turkism without any discussion on the talk pages. I would like remind here that Turkophobia is an accepted scholarly term. Moreover, [[User:Aivazovsky]] has also recently edited [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varoujan_Garabedian&diff=132112516&oldid=131180893] the article [[Varoujan Garabedian]], removing the new Anti-Turkism (old Turkophobia) category from the page about a person convicted of terrorist attacks against civilians, again without any discussion on the talk page. He has done the same at [[ASALA]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia&diff=132110884&oldid=131136886], again without any comments on talk page. And a 3rd one, at [[Askeran clash]] here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Askeran_clash&diff=132111442&oldid=131369477], again no comments. That's 3 pages! Please, enforce the decisions of ArbCom with regards to [[User:Aivazovsky]] as the earlier leniency, such as here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAivazovsky&diff=130843295&oldid=130698404] did not help to solve the problem of editing or reverting without discussion. [[User:Atabek|Atabek]] 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
+:'''Administrator response''': I regret having allowed this report to become stale. At this point I am hesitant to investigate and impose a block for edits more than a week old. Please advise if there have been any more recent or if there are any future violations. Thank you. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 03:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
+==User:ScienceApologist==
+[[User:ScienceApologist]] has just called me "a complete dick"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wooyi&diff=132005667&oldid=131999381], again.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-19_Talk_at_Redshift&diff=51361752&oldid=51360598], contrary to [[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]] and [[WP:CIVIL]].
+*A previous ArbCom case found that "ScienceApologist is uncivil" and "has strongly and repeated criticized Iantresman with ad hominem attacks"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist_is_uncivil]
+Despite the ArbCom caution,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist_cautioned] ScienceApologist subsequently:
+*Call me a "bean-counter, not a researcher"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolf_effect&diff=92689797&oldid=92662419], that I "lied",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_G._Tifft&diff=92703798&oldid=92695563], and that I "lied" again,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_G._Tifft&diff=92703941&oldid=92700749] (reported previously)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive3#User:ScienceApologist]
+*Called me the "the Ian peacock"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plasma_cosmology&limit=500&action=history] which was noted by another Admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScienceApologist&diff=96127061&oldid=95748213]
+And just recently:
+*I am "a confirmed POV-pusher"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plasma_cosmology&diff=130351476&oldid=130347382]
+*Having "professed your devotion to this particular guru"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plasma_cosmology&diff=130368396&oldid=130366623] (not a tone of writing I'd use)
+I was wondering how many personal attacks, incivility, cautions and warnings, need be reached before some positive action is taken? --[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] 17:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
+::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plasma_cosmology&diff=prev&oldid=131312307 Ever since announcing that he's leaving Wikipedia], Ian has been acting like a complete dick, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScienceApologist&diff=prev&oldid=131998287 inserting himself into conversations that have nothing to do with him] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScienceApologist&diff=next&oldid=132194255 explaining that he's doing it simply to enforce just desserts]. Previous to this, Ian was acting in a very disruptive manner at [[Talk:Plasma cosmology]], in violation of his probation, insisting on the insertion of an [[WP:RS|unreliable source]]. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iantresman/Electric Enceladus|He had archived a deleted article in his user space]] in violation of the spirit and practice of [[WP:DRV]] and [[WP:USER]]. Now he has decided to escalate his abuse to the level of noticeboard. --[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] 13:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
+:::*And in all this time, I've never been derogatory to you, reverted to calling you names, nor used your qualifications, education or affiliations, to question your editing. And while we may often disagree on content, that is hardly justification for being uncivil. --[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
+::::This isn't the place to report such claims. Please calm down. '''[[User:Sr13|Sr]][[User talk:Sr13|13]]''' 04:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
+:::::*Unless they violate a previous ArbCom ruling? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist_is_uncivil][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist_cautioned]
+'''Administrator response''': I regret that this report was not addressed earlier. ScienceApologist is strongly cautioned to avoid abusive language, irrespective of his opinion of other editors' conduct. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 03:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)