:::We need to be mindful of just who would be impacted by such a block or action. We might lose a vested editor in science, but the benefits, in my opinion, far outweigh the cost. Look at how much time has been wasted in the two most recent AE cases, on top of the countless AE, ANI, AN etc. filings. Or the editors who have stopped contributing because of the messes. And so on. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 13:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:::We need to be mindful of just who would be impacted by such a block or action. We might lose a vested editor in science, but the benefits, in my opinion, far outweigh the cost. Look at how much time has been wasted in the two most recent AE cases, on top of the countless AE, ANI, AN etc. filings. Or the editors who have stopped contributing because of the messes. And so on. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 13:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:Jehochman, it is a game being played by both sides of the dispute, not just one side of it. For an example, take a look at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Levine2112 again|this ANI thread]] started 7 hours ago, where a member of the set of POV pushers to which SA belongs baited and goaded an editor with the other point of view and then ran to ANI in hopes of getting a ban. The game has been going on for a very long time (I've seen evidence of it going on more than a year ago) and has become an entrenched tactic of both sides of this POV dispute. I think we may need to start handling this rigorously the way we do the various nationalistic disputes - which are much better managed - any editor on either side who is disruptive gets dealt with firmly. We've given too many N<sup>th</sup> chances to too many editors and tolerated too much disruptive behavior for too long. The long standing patterns of behavior in these topic areas are so poor that any new editor coming into it will come to see it as our accepted, approved style of behavior unless they have a grounding in good behavior from work elsewhere. There are some editors with reasonable behavior patterns in this mess, but it is hard to see them due to all the noise and heat being generated by those whose behavior patterns are not reasonable. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 15:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:Jehochman, it is a game being played by both sides of the dispute, not just one side of it. For an example, take a look at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Levine2112 again|this ANI thread]] started 7 hours ago, where a member of the set of POV pushers to which SA belongs baited and goaded an editor with the other point of view and then ran to ANI in hopes of getting a ban. The game has been going on for a very long time (I've seen evidence of it going on more than a year ago) and has become an entrenched tactic of both sides of this POV dispute. I think we may need to start handling this rigorously the way we do the various nationalistic disputes - which are much better managed - any editor on either side who is disruptive gets dealt with firmly. We've given too many N<sup>th</sup> chances to too many editors and tolerated too much disruptive behavior for too long. The long standing patterns of behavior in these topic areas are so poor that any new editor coming into it will come to see it as our accepted, approved style of behavior unless they have a grounding in good behavior from work elsewhere. There are some editors with reasonable behavior patterns in this mess, but it is hard to see them due to all the noise and heat being generated by those whose behavior patterns are not reasonable. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 15:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::The difference is that the nationalistic disputes are between people that have fundamentally opposed but arguably legitimate points of view. In this case, we have editors that want to treat haunted microphones and useless nostrums as being legitimate. The reason the dispute has lasted so long is because we tolerate such nonsense, and people have gotten frayed nerves from having to constantly deal with it. We need to stop pretending that it is a dispute between two sides that needs to be mediated and arbitrated. If people add statements supporting homeopathy, paranormal occurrences, and similar quackery and nonsense as true, block them immediately, and escalate to bans quickly. The problem will never go away for the same reasons that vandalism will never go away, but it can be managed if it is dealt with the same as any other effort to damage the encylopedia is.<br>[[User:Kww|Kww]] ([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 15:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
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
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
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;
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.
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
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;
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.
Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivility.
WP:NPA says that: incivility... consists of personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress.
Rumiton's postings
(Will Beback's commitment to a neutral article is lately becoming even less credible.) [Edit summary] Revision as of 13:32, May 26, 2008 [1]
"Accepted responsibility" is apparently the original. You changed it to "took responsibilty" to introduce the biased tone you appear to find necessary for this article.Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[4][reply]
I can't help seeing it that way, Will. I believe you need to look hard at your intentions re this article. You have changed your interpretations of Wikipedia's rules constantly, depending on whether the suggested inclusion suits your views. This turnaround on article length is just the latest.Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[6][reply]
I am sorry, I should have referred to Will's eagerness to adopt any source that is critical of Prem Rawat in a more neutral way. Won't happen again.Rumiton (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[8][reply]
I am not inclined to. I never made an "assertion" nor said "a mental disorder." What I said was ... approaching the proportions of a disorder. You have misquoted me to bolster your POV, which is what you are used to doing. I find offensive your habit (it may not be an obsession, though it looks like one) of spending hours each day trolling through the most biased and tabloidal of sources to find material critical of a living person while denigrating more balanced or positive writings. Civility applies to the living subjects of Wikipedia biographies as well as to the editors. You have previously claimed you didn't know what "tabloidal" means. Follow the link and read carefully the first paragraph. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[11][reply]
As I explained on my talkpage I am not inclined to remove this comment, but in the spirit of Wikipedic collegiality I am prepared to consider alternatives. I need a phrase to describe someone who is willing to spend months trolling the worst of the world's gutter press for insults to triumphantly present for inclusion in a Wikipedia article on a spiritual master who is well-regarded by millions. I am open to any suggestions, but "approaching a disorder" is a mild phrase that seems to cover the situation, even if inadequately.Rumiton (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[12][reply]
Discussion
I believe that Rumiton has shown a pattern of incivility and personal attacks towards me, particularly in the last several postings. He has consistently failed to assume good faith on my part. The comments above are all since the close of the ArbCom case on May 14. He has been notified of the ArbCom-imposed probation,[13], the probation notices appear on talk pages, and I have asked him to retract his remarks and stop making new ones.[14][15][16] His last two comments above are his most recent responses, and they indicate his intent to continue making similar remarks. These comments, all directed at me personally, create an "atmosphere of conflict and stress" and are disruptive. I request that an uninvolved admin enforce the ArbCom's remedy. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His hostility to neutral coverage of this individual is no surprise, since by his own admission he considers Rewat a "spiritual master". - Merzbow (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has spent approaching half a year now involved in the efforts to arrive at an NPOV article on Rawat, including the arbcom case and several months now of mediation, I could not honestly say that all the recent proposals seem to have been aimed at establishing an NPOV article for this individual. I feel there has been a loss of patience on both sides, which is affecting judgment – both in terms of how to deal with other editors, and also in terms of what material to suggest for inclusion in this article. I suggest everyone take a breather. Jayen46600:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about whether edits are neutral or not, it's about personal attacks, incivility, and a failure to assume good faith. It's about enforcing a remedy in an ArbCom case. Does Jayen think the above remarks from Rumiton do not constitute personal attacks or incivility? ·:· Will Beback·:·00:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that issues in my userspace come under my jurisdiction, therefore conduct issues are my responsibility to handle, and outside the jurisdiction of the sanctions, and a matter for me to handle. Steve Crossin(talk)(contact page)03:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, policies apply regardless of location, and they will be enforced. I've admitted that I haven't been as attentive as I normally am as a mediator, and this has been due to some serious issues in real life, which are being dealt with. I keep my private life and on wiki live very separate, therefore matters off wiki don't extend to how I handle matters on wiki. I've always noted that regardless of how busy I am, I will always look in to the case when I can, and that I am always available by email, Skype, or IRC. It has been my intention from the start to act not only as a mediator, but a keeper of the peace, and to act on breaches on policy where appropriate. My suggestion for you Will, and for all other parties, is in future, if there is a matter that requires addressing, send me an email, and I will look into it. If i spot the issue myself, I'll act on it in the appropriate manner. Repeated breaches in policy won't be tolerated, and will be acted upon. In this situation, I'd recommend a stern final warning be issued to Rumilton, to cease and desist such conduct, and a reminder of the rules that I set down when I took on this case, specifically, no personal attacks, no incivility, and no edit warring. Steve Crossin(talk)(contact page)03:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, a month ago Rumiton posted a personal attack and I told you then that if there were a recurrence I'd seek a sanction against the user. Today I alerted you to this latest round of incivility by email, and told you that I was intending to request sanction. Considering that we've already been through a lengthy ArbCom case, and considering this this not the first violation since then, I think the time for "stern warnings" is over. I'm patient, but if participating in "informal" mediation that Wikipedia policies don't apply or won't be enforced then perhaps it's time for me to withdraw from mediation. ·:· Will Beback·:·04:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, and on reflection, a warning likely won't work. As a non sysop, I don't have the power to implement topic bans or issue blocks. At this time, there is no real way for me to personally sanction inappropriate conduct in my userspace, the only thing I can directly do is issue warnings. I can, however, request the intervention from an administrator, and in this case, given the circumstances, I'd recommend that an admin look into this, and do what they deem is necessary. Steve Crossin(talk)(contact page)05:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, let this Arbitration enforcement run its course. Yes, Rumiton's incivil remarks have been less than collaborative, and he's been more than aware about the ArbCom case implications. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
New Section
Is it the normal situation that discussions like this are instigated without the editor under discussion being informed about it, or permitted to defend himself? Rumiton (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ScienceApologist and water fluoridation: incivility and POV pushing
Hi. I was recently called a "wacko conspiracy theorist lunatic" by ScienceApologist (diff) because I've pointed out that there is a current controversy over the fluoridation of water, as evidenced by, among other things, a 2000 BMJ systematic review which was ""unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide".[17], and the research covered by a 2006 National Research Council study, which noted studies suggesting that fluoridation increases the leaching of lead and Chinese epidemiological studies inversely correlating fluoride with IQ.[18] In 2007 SciAm ran an article where it said expert opinion may be changing.[19] Anyway, today SA told me "[e]xpert opinion may be changing on whether tinfoil hats can protect you from those mind-control beams too" (diff). He's made the rather pointy move of renaming the old water fluoridation opposition article to water fluoridation conspiracy theory, despite the fact that the article has nothing about conspiracy theories, and cut it from 34k to 11k. I don't want to engage in an edit-war, but there's clearly some heavy POV pushing going on here. II | (t - c) 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was clearly no consensus for ScienceApologist's page move from Water fluoridation opposition to Water fluoridation conspiracy theory, so I have undone the move and recommended that SA go through WP:RM for any controversial moves. His above diffed comments to ImperfectlyInformed were also clearly uncivil and a violation of his ArbCom restrictions. I recommend a block for disruption, both for the "mind-control beams"[20] comment and for the WP:POINTy page move today. --Elonka22:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with ScienceApologist extensively, including investigating them for sock puppetry, and counseling them after I set up Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. It is my experience that sequential blocks, especially with this editor, are not effective at correcting habitual incivility. The blocks only cause more outlandish statements when they return, and encourage wikilawyering by opponents. We want the incivility to stop, absolutely. (SA, please read WP:BAIT one more time!) A more effective strategy at controlling these problems is to identify them to the editor, and request refactoring, or to simply redact incivil remarks. Perhaps try this first. SA has done many positive things for Wikipedia. We should not be so quick to block vested contributors. JehochmanTalk23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why I should waste my time with asking him to refactor repeated and obvious incivility. If the incivility was not obvious, then refactoring seems reasonable, but I personally don't get an emphasis on refactoring when the incivility is obvious. Refactoring does little, and half the time the refactoring is done in a snide way. Now, maybe an apology would be in order, but I'm not expecting one. II | (t - c) 23:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think SA trusts me enough to take the advice I just left on his talk page. Incivility is a definite problem, I agree with you, but this situation calls for a lighter touch, I think. If you have further issues with SA, feel free to let me know and I will do my best to help. JehochmanTalk23:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that I don't have much hope. His incivility is little in comparison to the blatant battleground behavior, POV pushing, and absurd comments which I have to deal with every time I encounter SA. Anyway, SA knows that those comments should be refactored, and should have been refactored immediately after they were made. Asking me to spend more of my time asking him to refactor, and seemingly accusing me of baiting him, is mildly insulting. I frequently hear that SA makes good contributions, but it seems like he spends much of his time making edits carefully calculated to start edit wars and pointless fights. I don't see much in the way of good contributions. II | (t - c) 23:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need not spend your time. You can certainly bring reports here, or you can ask an uninvolved editor to mediate informally. I have offered. Rules are important, but we do not enforce them for their own sake. Every time we need to think, what is best for Wikipedia? JehochmanTalk23:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a third report on this very page, but that one was filed by SA about me. However, when the truth of it all was revealed and the admins began to discuss punitive action against ScienceApologist, he quickly "withdrew" his request and no action was taken. -- Levine2112discuss23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<-- I am saddened that so many folks have provided clues to SA, but SA still does not moderate his rhetoric. Perhaps we should request a revised sanction. Blocks have not stopped the disruption. SA related disputes occupy far too much attention on this board. Maybe somebody can propose something better. JehochmanTalk23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are few editors who have done more to define down the minimum level of civility required to participate at WP. WP will somehow manage to soldier on should we ask SA to take an enforced break of some length to reconsider his methods. Ronnotel (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Short blocks don't appear to work to get SA to stop being incivil. Asking him to refactor isn't going to work - the disruption has already occurred. Is there any way of restricting him so that someone else has to filter his comments before they get made visible? (The reverse of the flappers of Gulliver's Travels.) I'd be shocked if there is a way to do that. I see three remaining options for dealing with this disruption - long term blocks, long term topic bans, and punting it back to ArbComm. ArbComm is clearly struggling about incivility in both of the related open cases right now, so who knows what would happen if we punted back. I hope somebody else has a good idea here; do nothing appears to be the worst of all possible solutions but I can't see any real reason to favor any of the possible solutions over any other. (Edit warring is so much easier to deal with...) GRBerry02:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should ban ScienceApologist from the areas of the encyclopedia where he has difficulty. Perhaps he would remain involved on other topics, and in time, learn the benefits of cooperating in spite of disagreements. SA's violations of decorum make it much harder to resolve those editorial issues that he would like to see resolved. I feel that we should go back to ArbCom with a proposal. JehochmanTalk02:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and we have conducted topic bans on editors with far less stacked against them (Kossack4Truth comes to mind). Do you think this is a suitable and acceptable course of action? seicer | talk | contribs03:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IP persists in issuing a vandalism warning to ScienceApologist over what is a content dispute. Any edit made in an effort to improve the encyclopedia is not to be considered vandalism. There is no requirement to discuss edits beforehand. If somebody objects, then discussion is a good idea. The IP is abusing vandalism warnings in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. That is not cool. JehochmanTalk05:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh. I tend to disagree. User SA has a history of bad behavior.[21] Removing dozen sourced paragraphs is far from an effort to 'improve the encyclopedia'. In addition, I didn't even participate in the content dispute, but have just noticed SA's unjustified deletion of the content. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ScienceApologist had already been brought up on WP:AE for that edit. The IP is now forum shopping, which is itself disruptive. We don't solve problems by instigating huge dramas that disrupt multiple pages. Over at WP:AE I have already suggested rather strict measures for dealing with SA's disruption. A checkuser would be an excellent idea, and if it reveals sock puppetry by SA, that would be grounds for even stricter measures. JehochmanTalk06:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, most new users don't find their way to AN/I so swiftly. It may be worth checking whether this IP is somebody logging out to evade scrutiny of their own actions. It is not a good idea to act on accusations without first checking the reputation of the accuser. JehochmanTalk06:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am very tired of this little game where a gang of single-purpose, POV pushing accounts politely bait and goad ScienceApologist until he loses his cool and violates decorum. That is not what Wikipedia is about. We should be trying to help each other, not setting traps and then running to WP:AE and WP:ANI to get other users banned. The current restrictions on SA seem to exacerbate the problem by encouraging polite trolling. I think we need to revisit these sanctions and come up with a better plan. For instance, we should take a dim view of editors in a content dispute with SA who seek to use this board for tactical advantage. SA for his part needs to maintain decorum, or stay out of the "hot zone". Should that prove impossible, the Wikipedia community will have to impose external restrictions. I note that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions has recently (July 28, 2008) provided a new tool for administrators to control disruption. Perhaps the careful application of discretionary sanctions on SA and those who are trolling SA would help resolve the matter. Thoughts by uninvolved parties would be especially appreciated. JehochmanTalk11:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, one week topic bans from pseudoscience and natural science articles for SA and the IP (and its main account) might help control disruption. We need to be especially even handed to the combatants on both sides, lest one side be encouraged to troll the other. JehochmanTalk11:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brief blocks and/or topic bans are not the answer. ScienceApologist seems to take pride in the number of times he has been blocked, banned, or had to go through ArbCom cases. To address that kind of disruption, I recommend that an indefinite block be imposed, until he gives his word to change his behavior. With most other editors, a brief block usually gets the message across that behavior needs to change. But with ScienceApologist, he has received the message, but deliberately chosen to ignore it. I am also unaware of any location where he has acknowledged the authority of the ArbCom rulings about him. To my knowledge, he has never actually promised to abide by them. Until he personally gives his word that he is going to change his approach, he should be removed from the project. If that means we lose some of his good edits along with the disruption, well, okay, we can live with that. On the flip side, by his aggressive approach, we are suffering even greater damage, both from the good edits that we are losing from good editors that he is driving away, and from the bad example that he is setting towards other newer editors, that "this is how you get things done on Wikipedia." But that is not how things should be done, and until SA acknowledges the community's will on this, he should not be permitted to cause further disruption. --Elonka13:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am reminded of this quote:
"I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind." --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51 5 February 2008
We need to be mindful of just who would be impacted by such a block or action. We might lose a vested editor in science, but the benefits, in my opinion, far outweigh the cost. Look at how much time has been wasted in the two most recent AE cases, on top of the countless AE, ANI, AN etc. filings. Or the editors who have stopped contributing because of the messes. And so on. seicer | talk | contribs13:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, it is a game being played by both sides of the dispute, not just one side of it. For an example, take a look at this ANI thread started 7 hours ago, where a member of the set of POV pushers to which SA belongs baited and goaded an editor with the other point of view and then ran to ANI in hopes of getting a ban. The game has been going on for a very long time (I've seen evidence of it going on more than a year ago) and has become an entrenched tactic of both sides of this POV dispute. I think we may need to start handling this rigorously the way we do the various nationalistic disputes - which are much better managed - any editor on either side who is disruptive gets dealt with firmly. We've given too many Nth chances to too many editors and tolerated too much disruptive behavior for too long. The long standing patterns of behavior in these topic areas are so poor that any new editor coming into it will come to see it as our accepted, approved style of behavior unless they have a grounding in good behavior from work elsewhere. There are some editors with reasonable behavior patterns in this mess, but it is hard to see them due to all the noise and heat being generated by those whose behavior patterns are not reasonable. GRBerry15:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the nationalistic disputes are between people that have fundamentally opposed but arguably legitimate points of view. In this case, we have editors that want to treat haunted microphones and useless nostrums as being legitimate. The reason the dispute has lasted so long is because we tolerate such nonsense, and people have gotten frayed nerves from having to constantly deal with it. We need to stop pretending that it is a dispute between two sides that needs to be mediated and arbitrated. If people add statements supporting homeopathy, paranormal occurrences, and similar quackery and nonsense as true, block them immediately, and escalate to bans quickly. The problem will never go away for the same reasons that vandalism will never go away, but it can be managed if it is dealt with the same as any other effort to damage the encylopedia is. Kww (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
ScienceApologist abuse of SSP
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Things you dislike or disagree with aren't necessarily egregious personal attacks. ArbCom cases don't mean that we hunt people down and ding them for every comment we don't like.Shellbabelfish23:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is another report about SA below. Perhaps it would be best to merge these two threads? I'll have a look at that SSP report. JehochmanTalk23:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
This is a completely different issue from the report below. Totally unrelated except for the fact that it is the same problematic editor causing the problem in both cases. So there is no reason whatsoever to merge the threads. Dlabtot (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:FT2 and User:Alison were involved in that thread and are fully aware of SA's ArbCom editing restriction. The report was closed "inconclusive", not "bogus" nor "abusive". I feel that no further action is required. The rhetorical question "Obsess much?" cited by Dlabtot is not perfectly civil, but under the circumstances of manifest disingenuity, it was not an assumption of bad faith, nor was filing the report. Folks, please stop running to WP:AE every time there is a disagreement with SA in an attempt to get SA banned. We are all working together on a collaborative project. We must help each other, not strategize on how to get opponents banned. JehochmanTalk23:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So SA is free to make the same unfounded attacks against me in the future? He can call me 'obsessed' all he wants and it is for some reason not considered a personal attack? Why not? Dlabtot (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did I close this report? Am I not allowed to make my opinions known, or is this board restricted to only those who agree with and support you? When you bring a report here, it is best not to assume bad faith of those who are trying to help you. You're being point-y does not help this situation. From what I see, there is a longstanding disageement and one editor is using ArbCom sanctions as a club to subdue another editor. I dislike that. JehochmanTalk23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
seems to have calmed down, VartanM warned to tone it down, he's already on parole...Rlevse
User:VartanM resorts to incivility on Talk:Albert Asriyan. He insists on disqualifying the Azerbaijani-born violinist Albert Asriyan from Category:Azerbaijani violinists on grouds of Asriyan being an ethnic Armenian who fled Azerbaijan as a result of war between Armenia and Azerbaijan (1988—), though after having contributed to Azerbaijani music industry for decades. In his rationale for removing the category, he makes direct attacks on Azerbaijani cultural heritage by suggesting that Azerbaijan has no violinists of its own and therefore is in need of "stealing" them from other cultures.[22] This is not the first instance of VartanM making such incivil and xenophobic comments about Azerbaijan and suggesting its cultural inferiority to Armenia. On 3 August 2007, while arguing the notability of Azerbaijani film director Huseyn Seyidzadeh, he stated that it was understandable why he could only find so few sources mentioning Seyidzadeh, as "not everyone can be Parajanov's" (sic). (Sergei Parajanov was an prominent Armenian film director of the Soviet era). I find such behaviour unacceptable, uncooperative and racist. Parishan (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So he needs to go under sanctions as such behavior should be stopped. In his recent edits you can see anti-Azerbaijani behavior very clearly. In his another comment in the talk of Azerbaijani radio station ANS ChM he shows racist behave as well regarding a true fact that he removed. Need more facts? 16:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Side comment. He is uncivil when dealing with other users as well. Here he advice "to be nice" as a response to his opponent's completely civil request. GülməmmədTalk16:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eupator, did you forget about the amended remedies for AA2? I'm not commenting about VartanM's actions here, but if he fails to adhere to Wikipedia policy on AA articles, he can be placed on discretionary sanctions by an uninvolved administrator (provided that he was warned sufficiently). Gulmammad, your diffs show some rudeness, but nothing in violation of WP:CIVIL IMO. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know. That means that an uninvolved admin can impose sanctions on anyone editing within the scope of the conflict. That has yet to be done in his case; ergo, my initial comment.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that this board is for reporting users who you think have violated existing arbcom sanctions against them specifically not for reporting users who you think oughta be sanctioned.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So now for what should I be sanctioned for? Parishan's conduct has been much more reprehensible than mine. Removing Armenian terms on countless articles as retaliation, adding Armenian 'antisemitism' in the main antisemetism article with a text that is longer than Poland or Germany. Adding Armenian descent for some NAZI general as retaliation and check the History of the Jews in Armenia, most of it is about antisemitism, worked again by Parishan. Heavy revert warring and refusing to adhere to the consensus wording accepted by both parties, just recently by adding the term de Jure which has been debated for over a year with a hard reached consensus for the official term. And Parishan is reporting me for what? It seems the past is back, retaliating by reporting someone for some bogus reason because your friend has been reported and sanctioned by that person. P.S I still find it amusing that the "Great Nation of Azerbaijan" has no violinist of its own and must claim Armenian ones, see the Azerbaijani violinist category to know what I mean[23]. VartanM (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Insult: What do you think about this insulting sentense regarding Azerbaijani nation left above by VartanM: "I still find it amusing that the "Great Nation of Azerbaijan" has no violinist of its own and must claim Armenian ones"? I see this to be pure insult adressed to a particular nation. 01:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is another comment regarding Azerbaijani radio station: : "Removed the unsourced claim about the station being the first one on the moon". In his comment he avoided to be bold and replied rudely to his opponent's cooperative request "please try to provide sources instead of tagging articles." Clearly this behavior shows up in his edits to articles which are related to the region and need to be sanctioned. GülməmmədTalk02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rlevse, these are not just minor differences. These people, on all sides, have educated under a certain viewpoint of history. Content disputes on Wikipedia arise when these editors find people of other countries who dispute the entire foundation of their historical understanding. It's something you can't just forgive and forget, unfortunately. However, to avoid a ban in the future, I echo Rlevse's request to maintain civility and to not edit war on these conflict articles. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)03:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys don't understand the hilarity of having a Category:Azerbaijani violinists and the only entry in there is an Armenian. I'll make sure both of you get the next Azeri mass hysteria about someone stealing their culture. Hopefully one day they'll have a violinist of their own. Anyway, my sincere apology to the "Great Nation of Azerbaijan". BTW, does anyone know if they have a Article 301 of their own? I mean, I wouldn't want to be shot in the back for insulting azerbaijaness. VartanM (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VartanM, you don't make the situation any better by keeping on making comments like this. Of course there are violinists in Azerbaijan, but there are no articles about them in nWikipedia as yet. I don't know who this person in question is, never heard of him before, but "Azerbaijani" is both ethnicity and nationality. You know this perfectly well, and yet you continue making comments offensive for other people and nations. I suggest you stop it, and remember that you are on civility parole. Grandmaster (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that VartanM is on parole, unlike parties to the fist AA case (except Eupator, who was repeatedly placed on parole). So people claiming that this user is not subject to any sanctions are wrong. Please see the list of people who are on parole: [24] Except for the parties to the first AA case, all other people in the list are on parole. A part of VartanM's parole is civility supervision, as could be seen from a warning on his talk page. Grandmaster (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I also find VartanM's comments to be racist and nationalistic. What's the point in making comments like that, how exactly are they helpful for building an encyclopedia? Grandmaster (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are pointing at the hilarity of Azerbaijan stealing Armenian violinists. The fact alone that so many of you get so worked up about it is even more funnier. I'm surprised Parishan hasn't written 10 bio articles already. Good night to all, again my sincere apology to the "Great Nation of Azerbaijan" and its citizens. VartanM (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need Armenian violinists, and Asriyan is not all that famous. I first heard of him at this board. Parishan added him to a category to demonstrate that this person hails from Azerbaijan, like many other people of various ethnicities do. Why so much fuss about this and why do you actually need making comments like these? Your parole requires you to be courteous, and you have prior warnings about this. If you disagree with application of this category, there are venues to discuss it and resolve the issue in a civil manner. Please follow WP:DR procedures, and stop making comments that could only lead to the escalation of the situation. Grandmaster (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And one of my first comments on the talkpage was that I have no problem with a category "Violinists from Baku" or Azerbaijan. What was Parishan's response? edit warring justified by Iranian fleeing from Iran. -???- --VartanM (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and racist? Hold on, who is presenting everything done in Azerbaijan as the first. ANS radio for instance claimed by Gulmammad to be the first FM radio in the Caucasus. Everyone knows FM radio in the Caucasus existed long before 1994. Soviets had a different name for it and the FM spread in 1994 when private non-governmental companies opened their own TV and Radio stations. Hai FM was also founded at the same time and not after ANS, the same goes with some Georgian FM stations. Gulmammad called me a racist for questioning such bogus nationalistic claim.
And for those who don't get it, the comment on this violinist was because the man just like Gary Kasparov had to leave Azerbaijan because of threats and intimidations and ended up as a refugee. He may be considered as a violinist from Azerbaijan, but he is not an Azerbaijani violonist. Parishan created the category specifically for this man, and he knew this will create a conflict.
Perhaps no one will have any real problem if some Azerbaijani refugee of the war was called an Armenian. So those claimed racist comments were only protests retaliating to Parishan new wave of provocations. VartanM (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created the category because I was sorting out Category:Azerbaijani musicians and placing its articles under more specific and less ambiguous sub-categories. I equally created Category:Azerbaijani folk musicians on that day. Asriyan had initially been placed under Category:Azerbaijani musicians by the creator of the article; all I did was create a more appropriate sub-category to avoid geniralisation. I could never think this would cause a problem to someone to a point of resorting to xenophobic comments. Parishan (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir, un-az.org is not a neutral source. It's a website written and mainted by Azeris. And you need to pay close attention, FM radio stations existed long before 1994, they were called УКВ. But wait here is a neutral source from March 1994 that says Armenia had three(3) FM stations, thats 3 months prior to your claim. ....Weired..... --VartanM (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, .com is not reliable source. Second, the site that you see URL contains az is subsite of the UNDP which is for Azerbaijan. Similar one is for Armenia [1] and it contains .am. I see no tragedy here and they are expected to be neutral. Note that the source talks about private, independent FM radio (Frequency Modulation radio). УКВ (Ултра коротких волнах-Ultra Short Waves) were range of broadcasting frequencies not radio station. GülməmmədTalk06:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VartanM, it would be a shame if an administrator blocked you for your conduct in this AE report, so knock it off. As for Albert Asriyan, I believe both the Azerbaijani and Armenian violinist categories should belong. From my experiences, if a person spent a considerable portion of their life in two different countries, then they belong in categories for both nations. That's how I've tagged stubs for musicians and that's how I've seen others do it. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)12:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guy above just claimed that .com's are not reliable sources and I'm the one getting warned? Anyway, I'll sort the FM thing in the talkpage of the article. VartanM (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to bring it to the administrators' attention that VartanM is deliberately restating his original offensive comments about Azerbaijani culture even here. In this very discussion he has done it twice. One could easily come up with gazillions of potential sub-categories that Category:Armenian culture is lacking and likewise make childish impudent conclusions about Armenian culture's inferior, deficient, primitive, meagre little nature. However I have a feeling that users like VartanM would be among the first ones to report someone who would make such statement. Parishan (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Levine2112 request
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Sigh, this was on ANI a few weeks ago, and I thought you had realized that your conduct of July 5th you actively encouraged him to make the edits that you then used as an excuse to remove all mention of alternative medicine from the article. And you were banned from the article for a week back then. I see that both you and he have made 3 reverts to the article today. Looking at the article history, there was no revert warring going on until you returned to the article yesterday. To the extent that a consensus on the talk page is visible, he is correct; you appear to be the only editor on the talk page who disagrees with the mention of homeopathy in the article, although the edit war history shows you do have one supporter. Right now, my inclination is to renew your article topic ban and possibly make it permanent. To my eyes, the disruptive editor here is ScienceApologist. Does any uninvolved admin disagree? Or, on further thought, would putting SA on a revert limit be more useful than a topic ban? GRBerry01:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I've come to expect at this point that you would make false accusations against me due to your carefully honed and incubated vendetta against me. I can imagine that part of your advocacy is depedent on you willfully refusing to research matters carefully as you've clearly done here. What it seems to me like you are doing is relying on your preconceived notions to guide your construction of misleading, insulting, and ignorant comments. One ray of hope is that at least you are now admitting you are an involved administrator. I'm glad I don't have to worry about receiving punative blocks from you anymore. The hope is that other naive mop-and-bucket-carriers don't get taken in by the falsehoods and gross misrepresentations of your ideologically-bound advocacy.
There are so many sins you need to repent of here and so little examination of that beam coming out of your eye. You ironically accuse me of misrepresentation when you have in your short little diatribe written at least two things that are prima facie false, and one insulting insinuation that I should serve as the ceremonial whipping boy for an edit war involving multiple parties. Your cursory glance at the situation only seems to indicate to you one thing: ScienceApologist?!?!?! He's got to be the one deserving punishment!. Rather than wasting time segregating your mischaracterizations, or pointing out the places where you bore false witness against me, let's stick to the real issue of this request. Levine2112 has been acknowledged by a broad swathe of the community as a disruptive editor. People have noticed this behavior at a variety of places including his activity at chiropractic, alternative medicine, and other places where he has not only been most unhelpful, he hasn't ever added any meaningful content or done anything more than engage in outright obstructionism.
You appear to be misinterpreting the sentence "Does any uninvolved admin disagree?". It is properly clarified as "Does any other uninvolved admin disagree?" (I obviously don't disagree with myself.) If you come to an arbitration enforcement page, expect arbitration enforcement regulars such as myself to be here.
I see one factual inaccuracy above that Akhilleus didn't comment on - Levine2112 only reverted two times while ScienceApologist reverted three times. That there was no edit war until you returned to the page is transparently obvious to anyone that looks at the page history; there was a vandalism/test-edit and revert on the 16th of July but otherwise the article was not being edited in the two weeks prior to your return.
Frankly, I find your description of Levine2112 to be more accurate as a description of ScienceApologist than of Levine2112. Accordingly, as an uninvolved administrator, I am intending to impose appropriate sanctions on you, unless someone else that is uninvolved comes up with a better solution. GRBerry16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's at least two editors on the talk page who agree w/SA, and I find SA's arguments convincing myself. I've participated in the discussion before, and found Levine2112 uncooperative. At times I suspected he was willfully misunderstanding other people's arguments, instead of engaging with them and explaining why he disagreed. Partially because of Levine2112, I found discussion at Talk:Atropa belladonna to be a waste of time, and stopped watching the page. I also think Levine2112 has misrepresented discussions as resulting in consensus when they were in fact inconclusive (e.g., this thread at WP:NPOVN, which Levine2112 has used as justification for some of his edits). However, behavior on one article doesn't justify a sweeping topic ban such as the one SA is suggesting. Furthermore, both Levine and SA have engaged in problematic edit-warring on this article, and the best way of dealing with this might be a revert limit for both editors. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if Akhilleus is including me in this count, since I have little desire to repeat myself endlessly on talk pages. It should be considered that the reason for aforementioned lull may have less to do with ratiocination of the force of the arguments than boredom with the force with which they are defended. Based on several due credulity disputes with this user, I consider User:Levine2112's editorial insight imprudent in these areas. The fact of aforementioned disputes should be considered when judging the weight of my opinion. In other areas of the project, for instance here, I consider their judgment sound. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GRBerry here. There are legit concerns on both sides. If we topic ban one, we should topic ban both users. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's unsurprising that you are on GRBerry's side here, but I should also remind people that our little dust-up in January hardly makes you an uninvolved administrator. It would be nice if you stayed out of conversations that did not directly involve you and did involve me. It would be nice if GRBerry did that too, but I've grown used to both of your harassing wikistalking at enforcement pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I do believe that a restriction on reverting and undoing would be more useful than a total topic ban or even a topic ban allowing use of the talk pages. Revert restrictions might work to end the edit wars while still letting the users seek compromises if they wish to do so. And it is a solution that seems to be working well in the nationalist POV wars. I see no reason it wouldn't work as well in the pro/anti alternative medicine POV wars and managing the POV warriors such as SA or Dana Ullman (were he still around). And I'm far more concerned by sterile revert warring than by disagreements about how much weight to put on various issues in an article - the first is always a problem, the second is part of the normal editorial process when different editors have different points of view. I do want to start by imposing the sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy's discretionary sanctions first. Let's start smaller than all pseudoscience related articles. If it works there then we could consider expanding as needed under the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience (one arbitration motion for both cases) discretionary sanctions. If it doesn't work there, we can the expand to complete topic bans. Sorting it out, my proposal is (from worst problem to smallest):
ScienceApologist, who reverted three times in this edit war, has multiple prior blocks for edit warring, has been formally notified of the existence of discretionary sanctions under both the Homeopathy and ScienceApologist/Pseudoscience cases, and has already been sanctioned for this article once under the Homeopathy case, be put on revert restrictions immediately.
Ludwigs2, who reverted three times in this edit war, has a prior block for edit warring, and who from Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 14#Discussion and related activity definitely knows of the discretionary sanctions for the Homeopathy case be put on revert restrictions immediately
Levine2112, who reverted two times in this edit war, has prior blocks for edit warring, and who from Talk:Quackwatch where he has been active may or may not know of the the discretionary sanctions for the Homeopathy case be formally notified and warned about revert warring.
QuackGuru, who reverted one time in this edit war, has multiple prior blocks for edit warring, and who from Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 14#Discussion and related activity definitely knows of the discretionary sanctions for the Homeopathy case be informally cautioned.
Kwamikagami, who reverted two times in this edit war, has a clean block log, and probably doesn't know of the discretionary sanctions (though may have seen them at Talk:Quackwatch where he has been active) be informally cautioned.
Dlabtot, who reverted one time in this edit war, has one prior block for edit warring, and probably doesn't know of the discretionary sanctions be ignored.
ImperfectlyInformed, who reverted one time in this edit war, has a clean block log, and probably doesn't know of the discretionary sanctions (though may have seen them at Talk:Quackwatch where he has been active) be ignored.
For all immediately restricted, the revert restrictions would be for homeopathy (broadly construed) articles and homeopathy (broadly construed) related material in other articles, be a 1 revert per page per week restriction, and except only vandalism (for which purpose vandalism explicitly does not include point of view editing, an provision that shouldn't need to be made explicit, but...). For each restricted editor, the restriction will lapse 6 months after the last violation by that editor for which a block or caution is issued and logged. Violations to result in blocks or cautions at the discretion of the reviewing admins here at WP:AE. GRBerry16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a note: ScienceApologist called me a wackjob conspirancy theorist and lunatic, which I believe calls for some sort of Arb enforcement -- although I might be wrong. I don't think a short block will do much good, and I'm not exactly hurt, but someone else might have been hurt by those words. Perhaps it is skirts civility to say it, but I've said before that ScienceApologist seems to pursue edit-warring. I suggested on the atropa belladonna page that he try a different approach: open up a RfC to gauge consensus; if he can get a reasonable consensus to remove the single sentence mentioning homeopathy, then nobody will object to taking it out. If he can't, then he should leave it be. I started a section for that question, but no one has responded yet. (My take is that if 2 clinical trials in mainstream journals have been done, it seems reasonable to give it a sentence.) II | (t - c) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Olahus and Xasha banned from "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania, expires in 6 months"
I'm filing this report myself regarding statements made by User:Xasha against User:Olahus because the latter is now blocked for revert-warring and wiki-stalking, and because the statements made by Xasha merit the enforcers' attention.
The two statements in question are here ("I'll revert any edit that calls a Nazi invasion 'liberation'") and here ("Wtf man, every edit made by me is blindly reverted by Olahus (he doesn't even care that he introduces Nazi apologia in the process).") (Note too the incivility there.)
For those who may not be aware, what we are discussing is the Romanian advance into Bessarabia (roughly equivalent to today's Moldova) in summer 1941. The province had joined Romania in 1918 before the Soviet Union forced its cession in June 1940. A year of Stalinist terror followed, and Romanians there naturally greeted the return of their army with relief and a sense of being liberated.
Without passing judgment on the liberation/occupation issue, and without seeking to trivialize the crimes committed by the Romanian Army in the period following June 1941, permit me to state that this is an egregious accusation by Xasha, who has a history of comparing opinions he dislikes to "Nazism". First, it was not a "Nazi invasion" but a Romanian operation, something Xasha likely knows well. Second, and even more damning, Xasha accuses Olahus of "Nazi apologia". Unfortunately for Xasha, the Romanian press (and I mean serious, mainstream organs) routinely refers to this event as a liberation, and no one accuses it of Nazi apologia (remember, it was the Romanian Army that went in, not the German). Examples: from Ziua last month - [26] "Voronin's Communists Lament Bessarabia's Temporary Liberation from beneath the Bolshevik Yoke." From Memoria - [27] "the liberation of Bessarabia by the Romanian Army...they were able to return to Chişinău after its liberation." From Jurnalul Naţional - [28] "...a military administration in the provinces liberated in summer 1941." From Gardianul - [29] "On 22 June 1941 the Romanian Army crossed the Prut to liberate Bessarabia." And, from the Romanian Army's own newspaper - [30] "...the anti-Soviet war for the liberation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina..."
Now, why does all this matter? Well, first, Olahus was clearly not describing a "Nazi invasion" as a "liberation". And second, he was not expressing "Nazi apologia" but a mainstream viewpoint. Xasha is attempting to discredit him, to silence him by raising the spectre of Nazi sympathies. Unfortunately for him, the Digwuren case is very clear: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee." Given Xasha's expanding block log, including two blocks under the Digwuren case, I trust the Committee will take appropriate action. BiruitorulTalk23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The town was captured during an Axis offensive (Operation Barbarossa), by combined Nazi German and Antonescu's Romanian troops (with Germans having the main role, according to this Romanian site describing the offensive). What followed was a massacre of the Jewish majority in the city and the whole region(about 150,000 were deported to Transnistria were most of them perished; that's what the Romanian gvt said at least). How low can somebody go to call this a "liberation"? Xasha (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. It was an overwhelmingly (but of course not exclusively) Romanian operation; the Germans were busy in Russia. 2. No one here is contesting that Jews in the area were deported and massacred, or condoning the action. However, from 1940-41, Romanians were themselves deported and killed, and Romanians in June 1941, having suffered a year of Stalinist terror, did greet the Romanian Army as liberators (note women throwing flowers before Antonescu), something that is still reflected in the mainstream Romanian press today. 3. Regardless of the precise nature of what happened in 1941, your charges that Olahus was defending a "Nazi invasion" and introducing "Nazi apologia" remain unacceptable, per the Digwuren case - both its special provision regarding Nazi accusations, and more general restrictions based on WP:AGF and WP:NPA. BiruitorulTalk00:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Romanians who studied it say otherwise. See linked site 2. Do you want to battle in propaganda movies and photos? I could bring tons of em showing Soviet greetedwith flowers, both in 1940 and 1944. The traditional kiss is even more suggestive. Also, please stop this nationalist rant... the Soviets where not after Romanians, but anybody whom they considered an exploiter, kulak or counterrevolutionary, be it Romanian, Moldovan, Russian or Gagauz (the most famous of the deportees being a Russian ethnic, Eufrosinia Kersnovskaya). The Jews, on the other hand, were killed because of their ethnoreligious association. 3. They were very factual accusation, and that Digwuren provision has nothing to do with it. That provision says clearly: accusations that "a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies", but I didn't accuse his national or ethnic group, I accused only himself for a very specific matter: the presentation of an abominable Nazi invasion as a "liberation". Per AGF "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice". Being harassed by him quite entitles me to stop assuming good faith. Xasha (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Sure there was German participation, but dismissing it as an "abominable Nazi invasion" is a distortion of the facts that serves to discredit Olahus' views as unacceptably tainted by Nazi sympathies - which is clearly not the case (see the Romanian press quotes). 2. That some greeted the Soviets in 1940/44 is immaterial to the discussion - the fact remains that Romanians, who had just been through a year of Stalinist terror (and calling my description of it as such a "nationalist rant" will not diminish its horror by one iota), were heavily targeted, if not explicitly because of their ethnicity, then because they were the dominant ethnic group, and dominant among the classes the Soviets were targeting. And that they did in fact greet the returning Romanians as liberators, which many Romanians still consider them to have been. 3. You need not assume good faith on every aspect of Olahus' conduct, but you don't go around accusing him of defending a "Nazi invasion" and introducing "Nazi apologia", unless he places a swastika on his user page. You don't link people to Nazism, whatever you may privately think their motivations are. You, however, have chosen to do that, and Digwuren is clear on the consequences. But even if that is not the case, one only has to look at its very next section: "should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Linking someone to Nazi sympathies in the absence of explicit declarations he is one is uncivil, a personal attack, an assumption of bad faith. Either way, you have violated the restriction and I trust the enforcers will act accordingly. BiruitorulTalk02:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it is certainly true that all sides should tone the debate down a bit, Biruitorul, I think you are overlooking one particular thing in the present instance: Xasha was edit-warring in favour of a term that is objectively neutral ("capture"). Olahus was edit-warring in favour of a term that very very obviously is not neutral ("liberate"). It doesn't matter in the slightest if you or "many Romanians" may have reasons to think it was the latter; everybody with a modicum of intelligence and experience with Wikipedia policies must understand the term is unacceptable here. And for Xasha to point out that the unacceptability of the term is due exactly to the (very obvious) fact that it can be understood as Nazi apologia is a reasonable thing to do, even if under more relaxed circumstances I'd expect him to with less of an element of personal insinuation. Given the prior history between the two, I don't see much use in looking at it too much from this civility angle; with this amount of multilateral stalking, harassment and revert-warring, people obviously get hot under the collar. Let's deal with the tendentious editing, which is the root cause of the problems here; the civility issues are secondary. Fut.Perf.☼08:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "liberated" was a poor word choice, and that Olahus' conduct was provocative. Nevertheless, what I see as the crucial point is that Xasha has a history of these Nazi insinuations, and it should somehow be impressed upon him that these are unacceptable. Not only here, but here, here, here and here one sees the same sort of thing. Or here, he described a perfectly good-faith edit of mine as "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa" instead of calmly asking me to modify it or doing so himself. It's difficult to edit productively with another party when he's constantly accusing you of harboring Nazi sympathies. BiruitorulTalk14:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yeah. You want be banned with all costs. I'm an evil Stalinist paid by the communists. Something new? Should I call operation Barbarossa a "marbelous enterprise of our great Fuhrer, one who is on par with the gods, to free our superior white race from those mischievous, good-for-nothing slavs and their Jewish rulers" just to prevent any accusation of Nazi-bashing?Xasha (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. And here I was defending him and thinking it might be a good idea giving him a chance to edit without his opponent for while. But this posting has earned him his next block too. Fut.Perf.☼15:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The particular little revert war over Balti may have been sparked by my own sloppiness: The original edit was made by an anon user from a Romanian IP ( probably Bonaparte having fun). As I'm watching that article, it popped up in my watchlist and I promptly reverted it upon seeing the "Soviet occupiers, the genocidal policy", dismissing it as the usual by Bonny. Unfortunately, I failed to notice that popups reverts only one edit, leaving most of the anon's edits intact. Xasha noticed this on the following day and reverted deeper, correcting my mistake. --Illythr (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FutPerf except I want to clarify we can't ignore the incivility. Plus this is getting really old. Maybe topic bans are in order all around? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess topic ban for both plus strict civility parole would be a good thing. Two people permanently at each other's throats can simply not be tolerated. (Reminds me of that situation last year with User:Tajik and User:E104421) Fut.Perf.☼15:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - would that be Olahus and Xasha or me and Xasha? Because I haven't even edited on Moldova-related matters for a while. BiruitorulTalk15:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any opposition to topic bans for Olahus and Xasha, banning them from Romanian-related articles, broadly interpreted? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's go for it. The topic should be "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania", I'd say. No problem if they want to write articles on, say, Romanian or Moldovan towns, villages or rivers. But they'd better not then get into a naming dispute where Romanian or Moldovan preferences are at stake. – Also, should the ban cover talk page discussions? Fut.Perf.☼07:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:DreamGuy numerous violations of ArbCom decisions
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
A case was filed on wp:ani regarding user:DreamGuy, where another editor brought to my attention a list of actions which are in direct breach of the decision and ruling from arbcom, DreamGuy is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below is taken directly from the arbcom case page:
Incivility - here appears to be a threat on a user acting in good faith and well within expected boundaries.
Assumptions of bad faith - here relating to the same user, DreamGuy accuses him of harrassment. Oh, and the HUGE bold message on the top of his talkpage, the biggest peice of evidence against DreamGuy
Along with the numerous other breaches of condition, and this extremely long block log, I am reccomending an indefinite block until DreamGuy agrees to follow the arbcom's decision. Chafford (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Chafford editor confuses me. When Arcayne posted on ANI (where this whole thing has been discussed with links to diffs showing Arcayne's breaking of policies), Chafford responded by saying "I will have a word with him, if no response is given, we should assume his actions are to deliberatly harm Wikipedia, and he will be dealt with accordingly." which is an obvious major violation of WP:AGF (And common sense - so if I'd not been on Wikipedia today he'd use that as proof of wrongdoing?) and implies that he is an admin and will do some dealing. He is not an admin, and his edit history is very bizarre. When I pointed out the AGF policy to him, he responded nastily to my talk page saying that my opinion wsa "worthless". I have to seriously question who this editor is and what he's up to. Surely it's not an interest in following policies when he seems so unfamiliar with some of the basics.
But at any rate, I think the current dispute actually goes quite far in demonstrating that certain editors seem to be here more for wikilawyering instead of improving the encyclopedia. ANI has my full response to Arcayne's false claims (he seems to file a false claim every few months or so). At this point I'd appreciate someone look into Arcayne's incivility and harassment, and this Chafford guy might need a reminder that the rules apply to him also.
Oh, and many of those blocks were mistakes by overzealous admins who jumped in and assumed accusations against me must be true without looking at edits and got overturned by others. Certainly a block history from before the ArbCom decision isn't new information, and the decision made then already knew and took that into account. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are usually given more latitude on their own talk page, and so I don't think a block is required. Obviously, I agree with DreamGuy about his block log, not least because the last mistaken block was by me. PhilKnight (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The requested indefinite community ban goes beyond the ArbCom remedies, which call for a one-year ban only after five blocks. Only two blocks have been logged. The appropriate block, if such is needed, would be up to a week. In my opinion, the listed edits show a failure to assume good faith on the part of user:Arcayne. Regarding PhilKnight's point about user talk pages, I'm not aware of any policy that allows incivility on certain pages, and there's nothing in the arbCom decision about it. ·:· Will Beback·:·22:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If ArbCom decided that such a message on my talk page was incivil, I would have removed it. They were aware of it at the time of the ruling and did not say anything about it. Certainly other admins have supported it as an effective but sometimes unfortunately necessary method of limiting harassing comments. DreamGuy (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where it was ever brought to the attention of the ArbCom. Was it mentioned in evidence? In any case, the evidence that you had failed to assume good faith, including by edits like this[31], was accepted by the ArbCom and they agreed on a remedy as a result. How is your current behavior different from the behavior discussed in that case? ·:· Will Beback·:·23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was entered into evidence back then, and other people have looked at it and said it was fine. If the current wording is a big problem I can reword it. But it seems odd to be trying to say I violated an ArbCom ruling for a notice that has been up since before ArbCom was even opened.
My current behavior is identifying someone whose history of edits should speak for itself. The whole idea behind AGF is the ASSUMING part. The proof is all there. The last time Arcayne brought the arguments up here all admin comments agreed that Arcayne was way out of line, saying he was gaming the system, haraassing, etc. That was THEIR statements. Now that he has progressed to being worse it's certainly odd to think I need to be "disciplined" for pointing out an editor's clearly inappropriate behavior. Please go to the ANI page and see the difs provided for the most recent actions. I can provide more difs of his bad faith if necessary. DreamGuy (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last time Arcayne brought a complaint here (same guy who raised the complaint this time on ANI), it was closed without action because it was decided that Arcayne and others were purposefully being incivil, etc. in an effort to incite me to lash out so they could have a reason to try to get me banned. User:PHG said the people complaining had worse histories of incivility than I did. User:Gatoclass went so far as to call the behavior of some of them as harassment. It's frankly getting tiring to have the same people make the same false accusations -- and this time the thread about this at ANI details some pretty disturbing edits by Arcayne (erasing the article talk page, blind reverting some ten edits of mine with the claim that no discussion was on the talk page, etc.) Besides just dismissing this, I would like suggestions on how to get this kind of behavior against me to end. The Jack the Ripper article is still essentially controlled by an editor who reverts each and every change I make no matter what it consists of -- spelling, providing sources, etc. and this has been going on for about a year. DreamGuy (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my earlier comment, I meant that removing a comment by another editor from an article talk page is very different from removing a comment from your own talk page. Otherwise, I agree with Will Beback's comments. PhilKnight (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely that removing comments from one's own talk page is permissible. This complaint also concerns a comment left on another user's talk page, and of the edit summaries in both edits. ·:· Will Beback·:·23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to have an evenhanded blocking policy. BetaCommand is under similar editing restrictions and actions, and is unblocked at the moment. That being said, Arcayne's actions also need to be considered. If his/her actions in regard warning DreamGuy were improper (and I don't have an opinion at the moment), then DreamGuy's violation of AGF is understandable. — Arthur Rubin(talk)00:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not a violation of AGF to point out when someone IS breaking the rules when it's so over the top that it's undeniable. I think of year of blind reverting all edits I make on an article no matter what the content is is more than enough proof that Arcayne is not editing in good faith, but then there's more proof than just that. Check the links provided on the ANI page, and I can provide more if necessary... DreamGuy (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, and I do believe it is, then I have fallen into Arcaynes trap and fucked up royally, however in my defence, It says on both pages that I am not an administrator, and, in the message I left on wp:ANI, I said he would be dealt with accordingly, which is completely different to me saying I will deal with him accordingly, nowhere did I say that any action taken would be from me, thus, I have not impersonated admin status. Chafford (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I appreciate you showing up to say you changed your mind. I agree that you did not intentionally mislead anyone, but you should be careful how you word things on a page intended for admin discussion. I think you got Arcayne's hopes up too much. DreamGuy (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I see these things, all I can think of, is "Oh, no ... here we go again". I have recused myself from any administrative action on Jack the Ripper; an article that has an appalling history of bad manners and aggressive reverting, despite any and every attempt to build consensus on the talk page. This ancient edit summary demonstrates DG's rather dismissive attitude to consensus and assumption of "Good Faith" – and it seems to me, the majority of DG's edits are to return to a version that has failed to progress through the wikipedia quality process over a period of years. Now that said, I personally believe that both DG and Arcayne have much to offer the JtR article - if only they could find some way to put their differences aside and talk to each other; and, more importantly, engage with others. I personally am fed up with the "forget about content" let's talk about "your behaviour" attitude that stymies article development; drives other editors away and that permeates that particular article.
Now. I don't think it's appropriate to take action against DG, beyond reminding him of his existing restrictions - because he is an honourable man, so are they are all honourable men .... The most useful thing that could be done (for the project) is to put them both on a parole that said that if they didn't get Jack the Ripper to GA status within three months, they'd both be blocked. Kbthompson (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KB, this page is about current, active concerns, not something from a link to something that happened before the last time someone raised a complaint here. That complaint was already opened and closed as baseless. Please stop trying to refight out battles and focus on the CURRENT situation. And, frankly, I am the one who is focusing on the content on the article in question, by making solid edits in incremental steps that are easy to discuss one by one and revert one by one if necessary. The problem is Arcayne does not do that, and you let him get away with it. Solve that problem and the rest goes away real fast. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, it would appear that some folk are keen about turning this into an Arcayne v. DreamGuy argument, most notably, DreamGuy himself. It is not. The sole purpose of my AN/I was to attempt to interrupt a cycle of behavior on the part of DG that slows to a glacial crawl the improvement of the article. The edits that DG introduced into the article were essentially the same he does every time, as if daring anyone to contradict them. When someone does, he begins and pursues a very familiar argument wherein the actual text on point takes a backseat to the personal attacks and pointy incivility. I speculate that he does this to wear down resistance, so that eventually, either the people arguing with him become uncivil (and either get blocked or muddy the waters in any civility complaint about him, which has happened 3x before) or they simply leave the article (which has happened too many times to mention here).
Wile I personally don't really care about DG's usertalk page incivility bit about admins, it bears noting that he says that he would have removed it if asked to by ArbCom. He knows its uncivil, he knows its a personal attack against admins, but won't remove it because he hasn't been directed to by the highest enforcement authority we have here in WP. That says to me that he is will only follow the letter and not the spirit of the rules; he is afraid of the punishment for failing to follow them, and would likely break them the moment he felt he could get away with them. Such was the case with the anon IP logins and edits - through two different RfCs, he was told to not edit anonymously, and only when AE stipulated that he stop did he do so. However, that is a personal assessment, and the usertalk page rant about admins is not really actionable, in my estimation.
Again, my posting at AN/I was to bring the matter of this vicious cycle to a larger peer group for intervention purposes; I was not seeking to have him blocked - clearly, the mixed signals he has received by being blocked, unblocked and blocked again for the same offense have him thinking that if he can game the system long enough (which he has been blocked for in the past), he will likely find a sympathetic ear willing to buy his line of bs about how the entire world is out to get li'l ol' DreamGuy. Blocking DreamGuy doesn't do anything but provide a respite for others in the articles he edits within.
Nor was it my intent to have this matter escalate from AN/I to AE. I didn't think his behavior was blockable, considering what he has clearly demonstrated in the past.
I was seeking, instead, to involve admins (and others) early into this cycle to keep things calm and on target in the article. That DG's first post to the article discussion at Jack the Ripper was to (again) address the editor and not the edits clearly indicates that bringing the problem to a larger audience was the correct step of DR. My post to his usertalk space simply advised him that his edits weren't in keeping with current consensus, and that the BRD model was pretty useful in building a new one, if he were so inclined. My archival of sections that had their last posts in most cases weeks if not months earlier was routine, not sinister. I do not revert all of DG's posts (only those which do not have consensus) and then I ask him to instead discuss his edits and seek a new consensus. That's it. No incivility on my part at all.
I don't want to see DG blocked or banned - I simply want the pattern of abusive editing to stop. It is distressing that the article loses so many editors because of the flare-ups that occur - strangely enough,- only when DG contributes. He has something to offer the article, but most people aren't willing to brave the briar patch.My AN/I was asking for some assistance in clearing a path through that and get to the good stuff without having to deal with the personality deficiencies. - Arcayne(cast a spell)14:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People aren't turning it into an Arcayne vs. DreamGuy argument, that's basically all it is (Colin4c occasionally does some of the same problem behavior you do, but he has been less likely to jump to blind reverts). Hell, more and more it's becoming obvious this is basically limited to Jack the Ripper editors... Solve the basic problem there (Arcayne's insistence that he OWNs it and people feeling blind reverting is the solution or demanding long explanations for uncontroversial edits (the few controversial edits should be discussed, obviously). We need outside people to come in and force policy following on that page, as the last year and a half seems to have poisoned feelings that even otherwise sensible people like KB can't see past. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest this is the permanent message which Dreamguy has on his User Page in which he accuses unspecified admins of corruption. It is a permanent testament to his permanent assumption of bad faith and unwillingness to abide by the wikipedia rules. I am VERY surprised that he has not been told to remove it by the admins:
"If you have a demonstrated history of personal harassment, your posts are not welcome here. (This includes certain "admins" who only got their position through sucking up.) You should know who you are. If you do post, your comments will be removed, most likely unread. If there's any chance that you might not know that your behavior is considered harassment, I will tell you, and from that point on you will not be allowed to post here. To anyone who doesn't know what I mean here, this warning does not apply to you, so by all means leave a message."
It staggers me that whoever is in charge of the wikipedia allows this flagrant violation of its guidelines to remain unchallenged. Colin4C (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, others have seen it and not had a problem with it, and that message is old -- it was introduced as evidence prior to the ArbCom decision, which said nothing about it, and was brought up the last time Arcayne complained here. This page is to see if I currently need any sanction for new behavior, not to try to continuously refight old complaints. Some people just need to let go and move on. Come on, already. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering who the administrators were who only got their position through 'sucking up'. Sounds like great material for a (blue) movie...Maybe that's why the admins don't object to it...gives them a sexy and sinister Hannibal Lector aura when they are trying to chat up girls in nightclubs....:
Admin: "I only got my position on the wikipedia by sucking up! Suck...suck...suck...suck..."
This is another example of the kind of editors I have to put up with on the Jack the Ripper article. It seems to attract people like that, for some reason. DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who opened this request for enforcement now says he was misled by Arcayne, so I would suggest that this latest attempt by Arcayne to refight an old battle be closed. I have an encyclopedia to edit, and the attempts by some to game the system by always forcing people they've chosen as enemies to have to defend against baseless accusations should not be encouraged. A warning by one or admins to Arcayne that he can't keep doing this would be nice as well. DreamGuy (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think misled is putting it a but strongly, as Arcayne's explanation (above) indicates that he did not wish this thread to start in the first place - but rather it was begun as a heads up on AN/I to potential problems at Jack the Ripper; and transferred here by an overly concerned citizen. Personally, I'd ask Arcayne to give you the benefit of the doubt and move forward in the spirit of enterprise and intense article work that seems to be breaking out at that page - but I'd also ask you to do the same. It's not necessary for either party to like the other, but a little generosity doesn't go amiss. Kbthompson (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Tut tut, I don't believe that's what he said. If you look a little further up the page you find he said "If this is true, and I do believe it is, then I have fallen into Arcaynes trap and fucked up royally..." so what he admitted was if your accusations of Arcayne's behavior is in line with reality, then he was mistaken. I have been watching this and have noticed that you have a tendency to drudge when the feeling hits you. You have a habit of playing the victim, even when nothing has been done to you. You berate Arcayne for singling you out... over and over and over... kind of like you are singling him out. You make propositions to include things on the page and then recant when faced with Arcayne's concurrence. Then post comments about not understanding Arcayne because he changes his mind to disagree with you. I am not on Arcayne's payroll, I have disagreed with Arcayne in the past and will do so again. He has goaded you as well, in fact I will give it to you that he started this, if not by reverting your edits (something that can be forgiven by discussing it on the talk page) but by posting an inflammatory (if not downright instigatory) note on the talk page about how "we have to go through this again". You are now both arguing over who is letting this drop and editing the article. You confront Arcayne about how he hs to stop WP:OWNing the article but you don't feel the need to discuss the article content without being forced to ArbCom. I'm not saying better worse or indifferent - I'm saying both of you could do with some self-reflection. If both of you would stop instigating the other this might just go away. How about we give that a try? padillaH(review me)(help me) 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Dreamguy has just changed his User Page entry warning, deleting the pervy sucking bit, but I feel not improving the the general wikipedia harmonic ambience. His new version reads like this:
"If you have a history of leaving comments on this talk page that serve no purpose other than leaving harassing comments (whether they are cloaked in civil language or not), as identified by myself or admins who have watched this page, your posts are not welcome here and will be deleted on sight. The two primary examples of this are User:Arcayne and User:Elonka, who have been identified by myself and more than one admin as engaging in activity that qualifies as harassment. Any posts by them left here is a violation of good faith editing -- if they have article related points to be made they still can add their comments to those article talk pages (though with Elonka and I not editing any articles in common for the past several years, it's even more inexcusable that she still continues to be obsessed with me). Others who have been warned individually about personal attacks/harassment on this page in the past six months are also not welcome here. Otherwise feel free to leave your comments."
Any comments as to whether this abides by wikipedia guidelines? Are all editors allowed to make such warnings stigmatising other editors on their User Page or has Dreamguy got a special dispensation which doesn't apply to any other wikipedia editor? Colin4C (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it to be in EXTREMELY bad taste to single out any given editor for abuse. The naming of editors and the presentation of arguments against them in an area that does not allow discussion is the very epitome of bad faith. That is an attack page pure and simple. padillaH(review me)(help me)
I am not sure what to add to this, really. I've pointed out the behavioral issue growing in the article which has (unsurprisingly) grown since I asked for some assistance in helping to calm things down in the article and article discussion. I was not asking for DG to remove his rant about admins, though I am increasingly of the opinion that it (and its new incarnation singling our Elonka and myself) is pretty uncivil and an onglong personal attack. The fellow doesn't want me to post on his page, but seemingly has no problem posting on mine whenever he wants.
This is not personal, no matter how much DG wants to paint it as such. I am not posting comments on my user-talk space singling him out, and am not continually attacking him in article discussion (in fact, i agreed with a few of his edits and discussion points). He, however, is attacking me, and I definitely feel harassed. I have no plans to escalate matters (why I filed the ANI in the first place, to de-escalate the problem before it grew into an AE issue), and I am left curious: how much sniping I am supposed to endure from this particular user? Before filing a complaint asking (this time) for him to be blocked, I'd like to know where the line is going to be drawn here.- Arcayne(cast a spell)19:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The line has been drawn. The material has been excised (G10 attack page) and User:DreamGuy has been notified. I have not prejudged the outcome of any complaint/decision that might now arise here. Kbthompson (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked him for 96 hours. That comment on his Talk: page was beyond the Pale, and clearly in violation of his editing restrictions. I suggest he take the time off to remove the rest of the incivilities in the remaining notice on his Talk: page. Jayjg (talk)00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unlikely that LOGANA was a sock of SA. Jehochman Talk 11:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
