Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Pseudoscience: ask for help |
→Pseudoscience: more |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==Pseudoscience== |
==Pseudoscience== |
||
Per [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions]] I hereby ask for administrator help in dealing with a conflict with [[User:Dicklyon]] at [[Eric Lerner]]. This user |
Per [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions]] I hereby ask for administrator help in dealing with a conflict with [[User:Dicklyon]] at [[Eric Lerner]]. This user added some content, and in so doing ended up inserting scientifically inaccurate wording, innuendo, POV-statements, and against-consensus unduly weighted opinions into the article[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=261226600&oldid=261210150]. When I tried to fix the problems[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=261228916&oldid=261226600] accompanied with an explanatory note on the talkpage [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEric_Lerner&diff=261229219&oldid=261225965], he reverted me with a very rude edit summary[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=261230728&oldid=261228916] and accused me of "POV spin"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_Lerner&diff=next&oldid=261229219]. When I then removed the edits entirely per [[WP:BRD]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=261232235&oldid=261230869] and tried to explain why we should do this on the talkpage[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEric_Lerner&diff=261232173&oldid=261231105], he reverted me without discussion[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=261233219&oldid=261232235]. Please tell me, how am I supposed to deal with this kind of behavior? I'm trying to be civil and calm, but the user seems to have an obvious grudge against me and is extremely unresponsive. |
||
[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 07:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC) |
[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 07:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:47, 1 January 2009
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
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}}.
|
Edit this section for new requests
Pseudoscience
Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions I hereby ask for administrator help in dealing with a conflict with User:Dicklyon at Eric Lerner. This user added some content, and in so doing ended up inserting scientifically inaccurate wording, innuendo, POV-statements, and against-consensus unduly weighted opinions into the article[1]. When I tried to fix the problems[2] accompanied with an explanatory note on the talkpage [3], he reverted me with a very rude edit summary[4] and accused me of "POV spin"[5]. When I then removed the edits entirely per WP:BRD[6] and tried to explain why we should do this on the talkpage[7], he reverted me without discussion[8]. Please tell me, how am I supposed to deal with this kind of behavior? I'm trying to be civil and calm, but the user seems to have an obvious grudge against me and is extremely unresponsive.
ScienceApologist (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
SPA on Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family
- Exxess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Digwuren arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
User Exxess, a single-purpose account, is engaging in much incivility at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination) (now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination - voided)). This is just the first of many rambling, uncivil post against me and other editors he has made there. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions, I ask that he is placed on restriction, and if he continues with violating WP:NPA and turning this AfD into a battleground, appropriate sanctions are taken. It is also possible that he had and is engaging in sock puppeting and vote stacking (both AfDs he took part in saw votes from IPs and other SPAs), see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Exxess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Just a note that I took the highly unusual step of voiding the 5-day old discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination - voided)) because of the highly toxic uncivil rant that it had become. Within hours of re-opening a fresh discussion page, the party named above came to the new discussion and began another rant of uncivil accusations; these accusations were not aimed at any one editor, so perhaps he was trying to be better. I found it necessary to take the hghly unusual step of censoring him by redacting a portion of his statement. I do not think that admins should (or should have to) void consensus-forming discussions or redact statements in them; but this user's conduct made these steps necessary to allow the process to proceed. I am not familiar with the Digwuren case, but if it is indeed related, and this is a user who can not conduct himself properly in the project, then I would support the application of more stringent sanctions on him./her. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've notified him of the editing restriction. If there are further problems, then I'll give him a short block. PhilKnight (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
De-azerbaboonifier
The following discussion 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.
- De-azerbaboonifier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
New user De-azerbaboonifier has created St. Sargis of Gag in relation to a dispute over at Qazakh Rayon. This is very likely to be the same person as Azerbaboon (talk · contribs) as raised recently at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive501#Azad_chai. Whoever this is, it is an inappropriate username and when used to create articles, I think they should be deleted and recreated by someone with a touch more class.
I am raising it here as the last time it was raised on ANI (see link above) there were suggestions it was a straw-puppet, i.e. a pro-Azeri person doing this to cast the Armenians in a negative light by way of Fear, uncertainty and doubt, which is a brave new twist and a new level of gaming - it is getting quite messy and the stakes are rising. If possible, this needs to be stopped. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Article deleted and account blocked. Jehochman Talk 14:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)