Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive25

Rumiton

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

Topic banned for one week Chet B. Long^Talk/_ARK 05:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

---

• Rumiton (talk · contribs)
• Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation:
  • 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 [8]
• Perhaps you (Will) are not familiar with the Wikipedic injunctions against "gaming the system"? ... Rumiton (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC) [9]
• I am starting to think Will stands for wilfully obtuse. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC) [10]
• "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)[11]
• ...It is getting harder to keep patience with your stubborn mean-spiritedness. Rumiton (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC) [12]
• 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) [13]
• And who might these "folks" be? Well, at least Will isn't pretending to be neutral any more. Rumiton (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC) [14]
• 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) [15]
• ... The quotes you post do not support your contentions, but we are getting used to that. ... Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC) [16]
• For goodness sake, Will, your obsession with this subject is approaching the proportions of a disorder. ...Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC) [17]
• 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) [18]
• 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) [19]

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,[20], the probation notices appear on talk pages, and I have asked him to retract his remarks and stop making new ones.[21][22][23] 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)

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)

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. Jayen466 00:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• And will there be enforcement of Wikipedia policies on your user pages? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• What sort of sanction are you requesting? Civility parole, a block, or a straight out topic ban? That's probably something that would help. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 04:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Whatever stops Rumiton from posting personal attacks. I don't see how parole on top of probation would be helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'll have a chat with a sysop and see what they think is best. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 04:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• You have written several times that you will not tolerate personal attacks or incivility on your talk pages. Please don't. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• I've already contacted an admin, they're looking into the situation right now. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 05:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks Steve and Chet for resolving this issue. Let's hope we don't have to come back here again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I surely hope so as well, and I will have a think of how I can resolve such matters without it having to be brought to AE. Let's hope we don't have to come back here anytime soon. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 05:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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)
  • You were informed 22:52, 31 July 2008 --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Another New Section

• Yes, I was informed, at 08:52 a.m. local time, when I was at work. I was topic banned at 3:27 p.m., and did not get home until 8 p.m. I read the fact that I had been banned, along with the notification that a ban was being discussed, at 10:26 p.m. So this case proceeded for several days and reached a conclusion without my knowing about it or being able to defend myself. I protest MOST STRONGLY at this gross neglection of Wikipedia rules. Rumiton (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Giano II

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Yada, yada, yada, this is sooo boring...oh, and a block would be punitive now. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley#Temporary_injunction, Giano II can only be blocked with the consent of an ArbCom member, so I'd like somebody to take a look at diff 1 where Giano calls Chillum a "useless twit" and diff 2 where Giano tells MZMcBride to "stop stirring and trolling and get lost". As I understand it, the civility ruling under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC isn't officially suspended until the current case passes. ArbCom member Jpgordon (talk · contribs) advised me to file here. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 21:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh have this link too [27] the IRC logs are so amusing. Giano (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You must be joking. Ok, so you, apparently, don't think everyone's tired of Chillum pontificating all over the place. Good for you! It's nice to have friends! However, if you want to "win" your argument by invoking mysterious offenses against indefinable substances, then all it does is make you look petty, intolerant, and childish. There was no "violation" of anything, except good sense and decorum in someone trying to go on a "civility patrol." Chillum was all but trolling Bishonen's page, even coming back to say that he had gotten the message to not come back! Giano said that she wasn't the only one fed up with him, and Auburnpilot, a completely uninvolved person in every possible way, came here. Looks like a squabble to me, and the one amplifying and trying to create a very big stink where no stink had been is not Giano. Geogre (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlike you, Geogre, I haven't to my knowledge had any involvement whatsover with Giano or Chillum. Somebody under ArbCom civility restriction is expected to remain civil and refrain from attacking other editors (which includes calling them useless twits). - auburnpilot talk 21:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Appears a premature report, as giano and bishonen were only moderately overreacting to chillum's overzeaouls defense of elonka. no comment as to the underlying situation. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Without any more comment than this, no-one should be calling anyone a "useless twit" on Wikipedia. That's common civility, not WP:CIVILity. I'm not sure it's worth making a fuss over -- I sometimes wonder whether the most effective reaction to an insult from Giano is to pretend it didn't happen... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Give me a freakin' break. I sure hope the "arbs" are seeing this. MANY people told them how stupid their "civility parole" on Giano was because every idiot on wikipedia will see "incivility" where it doesn't exist. "Chillum", or whatever his name is these days, has a habit of showing up wherever there is drama to be had. He likes it. Some people may think someone who shows up where he's not invited to egg people on are "useless twits". I might even be in that group. Are you going to block me? This is one of the worst uses of this board that I've seen. At least Giano wasn't blocked straight away. That's an improvement I guess. This place gets more unbelievable every day... Tex (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing is that more and more people are plaguing this project with the belief that it is perfectly acceptable to be an enormous ass if somebody is an ass to you first. This freakish belief that it is ok to attack other editors because "He started it!" is ridiculous. I'm perfectly happy to accept it if an arb deems this un-actionable, but don't give me some diatribe about the unfairness of civility parole. Editors who routinely attack other editors and respond with nothing more than incivility are a far greater threat to this project than any vandal or troll. "Give me a freakin break" indeed... - auburnpilot talk 01:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Some diatribe..?" Are you a native speaker? Bishonen | talk 12:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

"plaguing this project". AP, I don't get involved in much on this site, but I read it every day. I always thought you were one of the editors with a clue. Please see Giano's contributions and tell me how he is a "plague". And if you believe what I wrote above is a "diatribe", I don't think we have anything else to discuss. I can't say it's been enjoyable, but it's been something. Nice talking with you. Tex (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Civility Patrol" as exercised here is a grotesque concept. WP:CIVIL is a flawed notion which is now out of control due to the utter refusal of the authorities to define "civility" (not least because it would snare half the Admin "community"). Civility enforcement is now largely a tool to allow Admins to suppress views they don't like; often with the active encouragement of Arbcom. We need to clean out the stables here and start again; we need a rules based authority, not an arbitrary police state run by the Wiki equivalent of the Sheriff and his Deputy in the Dukes of Hazard. Sarah777 (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: editors are entitled to seek the same standard from Giano as they probably would from any other person with a history of rudeness and a civility sanction. Being gratuitously rude isn't heroic, nor praiseworthy, and it's not made okay by discussing what other people might have done. My own view on the harm caused to the project by bad social manners is elsewhere on the wiki. It applies as much for Giano as for any other person who is under a civility sanction. In that sense my view is completely impersonal. It could as easily be one person as another being discussed here. The decision made is that the incivility should end, and I'm not inclined to read into it, "but not if you are this special person or that one".

Geogre, Tex - if (as counter-argued) Chillum was out of line, then you discuss with Chillum, and if necessary you raise Chillum's conduct as appropriate. You do not use it as an excuse to dismiss issues of bad conduct by others.

Sarah - as Giano's been told on numerous occasions, it is his conduct to other users that is the issue, not his views per se. He has zero trouble whenever he speaks in a reasonable manner, and he hits problems when he decides his view on how he should be allowed to speak of others is sacrosanct. It isn't. People don't end up with civility sanctions for no reason, in fact they are not that heavily used, and only in cases of repeated well evidenced rudeness to others, brought to arbitration usually by other users in the community and evaluated by their peers elected to that role. It's not perfect (what is) but it is what we have. If you feel a better way exists, that the community would endorse more than the civility norm, then I urge you to develop the idea and propose it so we can use it. But until then, Wikipedia:Civility is what we have, and communally agree to, even if individually some don't agree.

Giano - you don't moon the jury. You come repeatedly to arbitration with a past record of incivility, and (in this case) a protective measure to prevent others picking on you for no good reason. Your response is while this case is being looked at, to head off and insult two more users. Not huge insults, it's true - worse get ignored - but you are also an incorrigible envelope pusher on this and I don't feel inclined to indulge envelope pushing under a sanction. If someone else were under a sanction, I would take that seriously too. You could have easily discussed the issue, rather than insult the person ("useless twits" adds nothing). Or you could have completely avoided presuming to speak for all "contributing editors" of the project, which you don't. This was uncivil, and you knew it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

FT2, I am not in the habbit of mooning anyone, least of all the Jury (if that is how the Arbcom now sees themselves), yet another of your clumsy analogies - in fact a double whammy this time. Now, take yourself off and just go and look at Chillum, and do whatever pleases you most. Go read his IRC comments from yesterday, assuming you were not already there! Regarding your final point, I am not under a sanction because you had no right to impose a sanction. Giano (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi FT2, you probably aren't aware so I'll declare that I've been in "civility" trouble myself and my experience, as someone who isn't often blatantly rude in the Giano sense, is that WP:CIVIL is abused in an arbitrary manner by the police. (Not unusual in the real world of course). And arbitrary is something that Arbcom can't run away from. They are not acknowledging the problem, let alone getting to grips with it. Far from saying anyone should be above the Law, I'm saying that justice must be done and be seen to be done. That implies standards of consistency and transparent rules. Rules which cannot be simply overturned by the majority masquerading as "consensus". Arbcom sets vague and poorly defined rules and then lets loose a posse of the good, bad and ugly to interpret and enforce them. There must be a better way! Sarah777 (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a better way. Move past the idea that civility is a "law" that, if "broken", results in "punishment" from an authority figure. Is that how civility works in the Real World? Are you civil to people because you're afraid of being thrown in jail? If a random person says something rude to you, do you call the police? No: you probably just think to yourself, "What an asshole", ignore it, and move on with your day. Any "enforcement" of civility will always look arbitrary, because while the general concept of civility is widely understood, it's fundamentally subjective to decide whether a specific comment is "uncivil", "blunt", "direct", or what-have-you.

Do you care what Giano thinks of you? If not, then who cares if he calls you a "useless twit"? I have no idea if Giano would consider me a useless twit, or a "foolish and stupid person", etc, and I don't really care. Giano believes (and I happen to agree) that his civility parole is a joke, and he's currently endeavoring to prove that point. This behavior is, at bottom, attention-seeking. Giano gets much more attention for his shit-stirring than he does for his stellar article-writing. The solution is to ignore the shit-stirring and reward the article writing with positive feedback. Civility parole gets this equation back-asswards, and the results were and are predictable. I'm doing what I can to change the situation by refusing to enforce this, or any, civility parole. Other admins are welcome to do as they see fit, assuming they can parse FT2's statement and figure out whether he "consented" to a block per the injunction. MastCell ^Talk 03:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't "move past" the issue of Law while Wiki empowers a host of Admins with arbitrary blocking power. The notion that in the Real World I could dump someone in jail for calling me a "stupid twit" is is bizarre - but that is exactly what happens here. If we must have civility rules (personally I think they are daft and a fundamental attack on freedpom of speech, but that's just my POV) then they must be based on some measureable objective standards, especially where blocking results. There is no avoiding this. This is a very serious issue - in the area I edit there is continuous potential for POV conflict (Britain/Ireland). What I see is that a whole strand of perspective is systematically supressed under the guise of enforcement of "civility"; by blocking or banning editors or forcing them out of the area. And I cannot forget that there is an outrageous and assinine Arbcom ruling still hanging over my head waiting for the some politically motivated Admin to enact. As was demonstrated when a recent block for reverting (based on a misunderstanding) in an unrelated area turned into a feeding frenzy by certain Admins calling for a total permanent ban. That was the equivalent of being assaulted rather than just insulted in Real Life - something which does lead to police sanction. Sarah777 (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• FT2, I was actually starting to receive an improved impression of your activities on Wikipedia. This was because you have very properly abstained at one issue on the Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision page, and also made the helpful comment, at the proposal "Question remanded", that "The entire matter has come to us precisely because the community cannot presently handle that decision". (Well, in my opinion it would have been more proper still for you to recuse from the whole case, but I digress.) Anyway, I was assuming that you would surely to goodness have seen that because of your, particular, past history with Giano—let's say, your interest in him, your very great interest, in analysing him, commenting on him, returning over and over to repeating your views on him, swimming in passive-aggressive circles round him, notably on your own talkpage in April—that it would be a good idea for you to avoid being the particular arbitrator dispensing consent (or not) here, as indicated in the temporary injunction "For the duration of this proceeding, Giano II is not to be blocked, or unblocked, by any administrator, other than by consent of a member of the Arbitration Committee. Doesn't that make sense, now? There is a whole committe, and it has to be you...? I ask you for the sake of your own dignity and that of the committee (entities which are both getting a little threadbare) to let a another arbitrator, any other arbitrator, field this one. I appeal to other arbitrators to step in. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

You'll notice my comment starts with the word "Comment" (rather than "Endorse" or "Decline"). I'm sorting out the computer issues but not yet back reliably enough or caught up enough, for the full scale participation of something like this. This is also closer to the borderline than many other comments considered in the past. I would not oppose a strict application of expectations, which has been asked many times by many people in the past, because this was completely unnecessary and unhelpful. For that reason, I state a personal view that such conduct is very unnecessary, and impolite ('rude', 'uncivil', whatever). And it is. I've also commented on others' comments in the discussion. That said, I haven't taken a stance on any actual action. I would have done so without hesitation if it was a more barbed insult (endorse), or if the complaint had no good basis (decline). On this occasion, I've left it as "comment". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, happy we, that FT2 has told us that Giano's comments, unlike everyone else's, are to be seen in pure isolation and never in context. There is this logical fallacy called the quiddity (hope that's blue): it's a hypothesized substance that's in everything, and once you hypothesize it, you can see it in everything. "Civility" is this quiddity here. FT2, do you believe that you can determine "civility" in a single response to a long conversation, with no consideration to the provocation? Just for the record, let's see what the provocation was, eh?

• Chillum, on Bishonen's talk page, where he had been told off and asked off before: "I am not really aware of what sort of connection you and Bishonen have, if you could enlighten me to its nature I could perhaps be more sensitive to you in the future when speaking to Bishonen."

• I'm not putting that in a diff, but rather quoting it. That kind of slimy insinuation would get a punch in the nose in person. It got a verbal punch in the nose on Wikipedia. However, like a tardy substitute teacher, FT2 seems to think that it's Giano who has the problem with civility. Gloria in excelsius, we have found the prophets and sibyls of Wikipedia! There can be no other explanation, because a normal human being would say, "Stupid, creepy thing said, and abrupt cussing out in return: normal" and go on. Not here, though, because, with no personal animus at all FT2 can find the quiddity, weigh it in a pan, and endorse. Geogre (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Bishonen, FT2 is a reasonable person, in my experience. Calm yourself. There's no chance of blocking Giano II at this point, because he's already calmed down and any block would be punitive, rather than preventative, at this point. I do a considerable amount of troll fighting. I don't think I've every blocked anyone for incivility. Disruption, yes, but not incivility. It is my experience that incivility is best handled by redacting incivil comments, slow reverting them, or counseling the involved parties. Sometimes people get heated over a content or behavior dispute. Rather than treating the symptoms (incivility), it is better to cure the underlying disease (the dispute), if possible. I hope this helps. Jehochman ^Talk 12:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll give you three guesses. I'm glad you've been so lucky in your encounters with FT2. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

Thanks all of you for the support, however, but by talking to those fronting "Chillum's" latest attempt to get rid of me, and bring attention to himself, you are also encouraging FT2, to comment further. He knows, as do the Arbcom, I do not like him even mentioning my name. Such is my extreme distaste for him. However, as he yet again attacks me and seizes, saliva dripping, this opportunity to attack me, I feel forced to respond, if only for the sake's of any new editors who may not know of him. As Bishonen says above, if he had one scrap of honour or dignity he would not be o this page at all. Most people see straight through him so I suppose it matters not. In his way, he is every bit as bad as the editor currently known as "Chillum," who having posted his lurid and vulgar insinuation for the titillation of his pathetic friends on IRC#admins, immediately ran to them bleating bleating when he got his well deserved punch on the nose. He did this in an attempt to repeat the previous block of me which he orchestrated on IRC#admins by User:Kwsn (The same #admins that FT2 assures us is properly regulated etc. etc. etc.) Following that block, FT2 even had the gall to use my having some edits oversighted oversighted to protect an IRC Admin, (member an Admin with oversight had to agree with me) as a pretext to attack me further. He truly is a person with no honour or scruples. I have no doubt he will come back here with some verbose diatribe, but the problem is now that every time the Arbcom drag me into one of their instantaneously accepted cases built on thin air and hope, they are more and more damaged. Every time FT2 open his mouth they are even more damaged. Everyone with half a brain now sees straight through them - and have they yet addressed the IRC problem? (hat they promised us all they would) No, of course not. Why? ....Because it is owned by one of their number, and they probably feel it is the only place that gives them the support to keep them where they are. In that respect, I dare say they are for once quite correct. Giano (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've been asked to comment here. Sometimes, unfortunately, the best response to a useless twit is to say they are so. Paul August ☎ 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Paul, but for how much longer are these twits going to be allowed to crawl all over Wikipedia from IRC behaving in this fashion. What is being done about it - is "Chillum" an Admin - is this the behaviour to be expected from an Admin? Giano (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul, that comment is out of line and you know it, especially from an arbitrator. I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the Giano matter at hand, but come on. Wizardman 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to Chillum, I did not mean to imply that he actually is a "useless twit". Looked at from a certain point of view — a view I hold — no human being can be appropriately described as such. But, there are certainly people who act badly, and sometimes saying so without mincing words is what's needed. I am not saying that this was necessarily called for in this case, only that in some cases it is. That was the point I was trying to make, if ineptly. And by the way in the spirit of calling a spade a spade, and in the interests of trying to offend all sides equally, Giano is perfectly capable of being a useless twit himself. Paul August ☎ 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The "call a spade a spade" philosophy falls over precisely because 1/ it aims at labelling not at resolving, 2/ because no two people will agree on whether the person is in fact a "spade", which is pointless to debate anyway since what we actually care about is their impact on the project and its other editors. This philosophy is just a recipe for bad feelings and future conflict. Saying someone acts badly -- and discussing actual examples and the effect of that conduct on the project -- is not the same as needlessly using epithets (I frequently find myself telling users very bluntly and without mincing words what their conduct is like, and their proximity to the block button, and I have never found it necessary to call them "twits" or any other epithet to so so.)

Ultimately all disputes that are not about legitimate content questions, are complete wastes of volunteer effort, and a distraction from adding to the encyclopedia. Gratuitously creating or encouraging dispute, calling people names -- whoever might do it -- or any of the other friction-stirring things we have communally agreed to try and avoid, is human... but so is bias, POV, and OR. If we keep our communal agreement that bias, POV and OR don't have a place (despite being very human traits), we can equally well keep the communal agreement that pointless insulting behavior that doesn't help the project doesn't have a place either, despite that being common. To say "people can't help it" is an excuse. They can, or they can learn to, every bit as much as people can learn NPOV and NOR or they will hit these kinds of problems. Yes, this will upset some who want freedom to act up and the right to act as they would off-site, and to call others names of their choosing. And yet it's a discipline that I believe helps the project if followed. More to the point, it's one we have all communally agreed to. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

An observation: Isn't it amazing how when an opportunity to have me blocked is presented or a kangaroo arbitration case held how quickly these things can be opened, but the second they appear to be failing to go in the required direction, they can be speedily archived and shunted off out of sight [28] truly amazing indeed. Wikipedia gets more like a third world junta every day. The arbcom and their IRC friends can't keep hiding the truth for ever. Giano (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

ScienceApologist and water fluoridation: incivility and POV pushing

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

The specific page move was undone over a week ago. On more general matters, User:AGK has become SA's mentor, with agreement by SA.[39][40] SA was encouraged to engage with the mentor before participating in a dispute.[41] GRBerry 17:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

---

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".[42], 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.[43] In 2007 SciAm ran an article where it said expert opinion may be changing.[44] 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)

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"[45] comment and for the WP:POINTy page move today. --Elonka 22:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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. Jehochman ^Talk 23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. Jehochman ^Talk 23:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not violate his restrictions? Isn't that the real issue here? Whether or not SA was uncivil? If he was uncivil, in violation of his restrictions, why does that require 'a lighter touch'? I came here to report him for a different violation and I found this report as well. When is enough, enough? Dlabtot (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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? Jehochman ^Talk 23:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

<-- 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. Jehochman ^Talk 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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...) GRBerry 02:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Jehochman ^Talk 02:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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 | contribs 03:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If SA were subjected to a set of topic bans, it would be a victory for POV pushers, and a bad day for Wikipedia. Cardamon (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, SA's incivility is a major obstacle to us dealing with POV pushers. SA provides endless distractions and cover. Jehochman ^Talk 04:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with jehochman, SA's cronic name calling, editwarring, and forum shopping to try and remove 'opponents' is a major distraction from dealing with those whose main goal is to insert the 'truth' into wikipedia. I have cut my participation in the contentious and fringe sciences articles because I don't have the patience for the battleground SA promotes. I'm not sure about a topic ban, I havn't thought it through enough. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Short blocks serve the purpose of over time building a case for systematic transgressions that can be used as proof in an the next ArbCom to eventually ban ScienceApologist. MaxPont (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thread moved here from WP:ANI

Note: The comments below up until 06:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC) were moved here from WP:ANI so as to consolidate the discussion.  Sandstein  06:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

i don't quite understand why an editor is removing warning template from another editors page, and in the same time threatening me with a block.

User:ScienceApologist removed A LOT of sourced content from water fluoridation opposition article.

I placed a tag on SA's page, and it was removed with a 'harassment' accusation from User:Jehochman.

216.80.119.92 (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess WP:DTTR applies here, but I imagine such a large change should have been discussed on talk page first. As far as Jehochman's actions, I am not sure. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Both editors notified of thread. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Jehochman ^Talk 05:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh. I tend to disagree. User SA has a history of bad behavior.[46] 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)

While ScienceApologist's large-scale edit to Water fluoridation opposition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (and page move to Water fluoridation conspiracy theory) may not have been vandalistic in the strict sense of the term, it was disruptive and did not reflect the good editing practices we expect from regular editors. I find it interesting that a few hours after ScienceApologist's changes were reverted, the new account LOGANA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turned up, whose only edits consist of continually reverting the article to what looks much like ScienceApologist's preferred version. LOGANA is now blocked without opposition as a vandalism-only account. I would be interested to know whether a checkuser on LOGANA turns up anything in particular.  Sandstein  06:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Jehochman ^Talk 06:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Jehochman ^Talk 06:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any objections to opening a RFCU on LOGANA and closing and copying this thread to WP:AE?  Sandstein  06:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

First part already done via Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist. I agree with merging this thread to WP:AE if you like. Jehochman ^Talk 06:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The result of checkuser was  Unlikely that LOGANA was a sock of SA. Jehochman ^Talk 11:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• The IP editor is indeed someone who has been in conflict with ScienceApologist before. Thatcher 11:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

would it be appropriate to notify the ip/other editor or caution them on appearance of inappropriate use of hosiery to avoid detection, responsibility for actions? I'm unsure. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Tired of the gaming

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. Jehochman ^Talk 11:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Jehochman ^Talk 11:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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. --Elonka 13:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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 | contribs 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 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^th 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. 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.
Kww (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I really think GRBerry makes very good points here. Editors in this dispute on both sides are just as convinced of their infallibility as those in the nationalistic disputes. And again, just like nationalistic disputes, both sides have editors who's behavior is acerbating the dispute. Over time, some editors or groups of editors have become adept at skewing our dispute resolution processes to gain an upper-hand. They lash out at each other and anyone who tries to intervene; they waste enormous amounts of volunteer time. Since the pseudoscience case has been updated to include similar provisions as the nationalistic cases, I say we try out some of the remedies that have been working in that area and see if we can't get similar results in this one. Shell ^babelfish 20:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It still misses the point, though ... the people that want to permeate the encyclopedia with homeopathy, EVP, and paranormal phenomena are not editors that we would miss. If you blocked every single one of them tonight, Wikipedia would be a better place for it. There actually is a clearly right side and a clearly wrong side viewed from the perspective of the information being added and deleted, even if both sides look pretty crappy from a behavioural perspective. I don't think that is true for the nationalism problems.
Kww (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What POV is the "the set of POV pushers to which SA belongs" pushing? Pro-science? Pro-reason? ScienceApologist is brave enough to enter articles like homeopathy and this, and for it, he ends up with a witch-hunting mob, trying to go after him. The fluoridation article was a clear case of WP:SYNTH being used to support a conspiracy theory. He wiped it clean and that upset the folks there. Well, sorry. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

my view on "the set of POV pushers to which SA belongs" are folks whose pov is 'mainstream'. If we were in the early part of the 20th century, they would be arguing for eugenics and racial difference theories to be included as the mainstream and the fringe/pseudoscience of gnenetics to be excluded. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, even among fringe theories, has been described by Jimbo as something that "both sides can agree to". Much of SA's actions are unnecessary or unreasonable, and that's why become edit-wars. The recent example of Atropa Belladonna, where he edit-warred for days because it has a sentence mentioning the homeopathic remedy, despite the fact that there are 4 RS covering it, including 2 clinical trials, is a case in point. He also frequently inserts unprofessional language which can be roughly paraphrased as "anyone who believes in this is a retard". It is patently false that fluoride opposition is about a conspiracy theory; the conspiracy theory happened in the 1950s. The articles on the fluoridation used in that page are directly about fluoridation. You might try reading a few of them. Did you know that the 2000 systematic review published in the BMJ of the evidence in 2000 found no high-quality evidence of fluoridation's efficacy? However, that review got taken out. You could start with the Scientific American article from January 2008 entitled Second Thoughts About Fluoride, which is one of the first references. II | (t - c) 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman asked for uninvolved editors to comment. I haven't seen anyone comment yet that hasn't previously been involved in a dispute against ScienceApologist, or on his side in a dispute. I'm involved too, and have my opinions, but I'd actually like to see what uninvolved editors have to say about it. I'm curious. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just the act of commenting on such a case tends to end up with that person somehow 'involved'. SA has a tendency to go after, often with excessive aggression, anyone who attempts to check him. At this point convincing someone who has successfully steered clear to engage in this effort may be difficult. Ronnotel (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's hard to be completely uninvolved in this dispute if you care at all about the material. Best I can say for myself is that I've been on his side in some articles, and have reported him at ANI and 3RR for misbehaviour at others.
Kww (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points are raised by Elonka and GRBerry above. I agree that an indefinite restriction on SA may make sense, until they change their ways. Perhaps a topic ban from the locus of dispute would be a reasonable first step before going to an indefinite block. SA might learn to edit better outside the "hot zone" and eventually be able to return and edit successfully. I agree with GRBerry that baiting on all sides needs to be stopped. I see two levels of problems here:

1. Unacceptable behavior, such as baiting, trolling and incivilty. This needs to be controlled no matter what the editor's editorial outlook. Those who support "good" edits are still to be restricted from using "bad" methods.
2. Unacceptable content additions or changes which violate core policies, such as WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Just because somebody is polite, does not give them a free pass to relentlessly violate content policies. Such editors need to be restricted if they fail to heed advice.

It seems like we are moving toward some common ground. Who else, not involved in the content dispute, can provide views? Jehochman ^Talk 23:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong measures in this topic area are long overdue. The baiting, POV pushing, gaming, incivility, edit warring, etc and so on BY BOTH SIDES needs to stop now. Since short blocks haven't worked, we need long blocks, topic bans on the range of pertinent articles, full protection of the articles, etc. Hopefully that will work. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the "both sides are guilty" defense. How about an unconventional approach, how about focusing on the "side" that starts it? Strange, yes, requires Admins to do more work, yes, but if you cannot handle the heat...why are you in the kitchen? Shot info (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong measures in the topic area are certainly long overdue, but I do not think that allowing the baiters to eliminate ScienceApologist would really be good for the project. All the noise gets tiresome, yes, but so do agenda-accounts and unduly credulous editors who continually try to push the boundaries of RS. I propose that we (by which I mean those of you with the buttons) make it clear that tendentious attempts to get members of an opposing POV restricted (yes, this would include the complaint ScienceApologist brought to this board the other day) will be judged meritless and ignored. Of course, this culture-shift should not apply to legitimate complaints, but admonitions to stop wasting people's time might be given some teeth. Additionally, it might help to be quicker with temporary page protections. Sometimes take it to talk edit summaries work, but often the removal of any other option is required. Occasional constructive edits often become the victims of the edit wars anyway; they should not, but rarely do emotionally charged editors take the time to sift out the wheat instead of just clicking restore my favorite version repeatedly. Single purpose accounts without a purpose may actually become convinced that neutral descriptions of reliable sources are the only reason anyone takes this project seriously, or they may just drift away. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

LOGANA and 66.65.85.138

See also: WP:ANI#Edit war over Water fluoridation opposition. seicer | talk | contribs 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

is ScienceApologist really the subject of baiting?

I've noticed a consistent theme among those who've called for SA's actions to be excused once again - they keep claiming that people are 'baiting' him. I'd like to remind everyone of two things:

1. 'Baiting' is a type of disruption and should be treated accordingly. If SA has in reality been 'baited', the perpetrators of these alleged disruptions should be sanctioned in accordance with Wikipedia policies against disruptive editing. Has that happened? Let's see the diffs and apply WP policy - if anyone is engaging in baiting behavior, let's take the appropriate actions against them. But let's not excuse an uninjured 'victim' because of a wrong that was not committed.

2. Two wrongs do not make a right -- even if the alleged behavior took place, the supposed misbehavior of someone else is not an excuse for misbehavior by anyone. Dlabtot (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, the question is not: is ScienceApologist really the subject of baiting? since it's obvious that this Davkal character seems to have made baiting SA part of his lifestyle. No, the question is: Is SA's misbehavior a response to baiting, and should this be considered as a mitigating factor? If 'Davkal' or some other banned user is baiting SA, should that be considered a mitigating factor when considering SA's actions toward User:RandomWPEditor? Are the edits of 'Davkal' an excuse for SA to flout WP policy with respect to User:RandomWPEditor? Dlabtot (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Does User:RandomWPEditor reinstate Davkal comments and then endorse them, abetting a banned user in the harassment of SA? Antelan 04:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you are referring to some specific incident, rather than a generic case as I was, it would be helpful to the discussion if you would share the details of that incident with all of us. For example if random editor reinstated baiting, or otherwise disruptive comments, that would be a different matter than if random editor simply reinstated comments that looked to have been deleted in violation of WP:TALK. Dlabtot (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't think where I've seen specific examples, but I've certainly seem some. One example I remember as occurring maybe on the fringe theory noticeboard, or maybe on the talk page of WP:Fringe, two or three months ago. An administrator removed Davkal comments; the edit summary made it clear that the comments were removed because they were from Davkal, a banned user, editors actually edit warred with the administrator to put the comments back. The editors reinstating the banned user's comments claimed to be reinstating the comments because the deletion violated WP:TALK, but that explanation has to assume either that the person somehow never read the administrator's edit summary, or that the person really believed that WP: Talk trumps WP: BAN, or something. One editor, in insisting the comments be reinstated even after it was explained to him that comments from banned users are routinely deleted, because after all banned users have lost the right to participate in WP, replied that he'd never heard of such a thing as removing the comments of a banned user and didn't believe it was policy. I believe there were several administrators present while that was going on.

One clarification, however: in saying that SA has been baited and harassed, I'm not saying "and therefore...." anything. If I had an "and therefore" to add, I would add it myself. I have no opinion as to the merits of the present case, in fact I haven't even read the rest of it and don't know what it's about, but am not likely to have anything to add to it regardless, since I don't watch any articles SA edits and have no knowledge of the particulars. I have only worked with him on one article, What the Bleep do We Know, and can't say I enjoyed the experience entirely. It's just that when this heading, "Is Science Apologist really the subject of baiting?" popped up on my watchlist, my jaw dropped, I thought "You've got to be kidding," and I felt I had to say something in response. But my response is to that narrow and specific question posed in the section header, not to the issues of the case at hand. Woonpton (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There must be a reason that we see all these anecdotes, but no diffs. The subject of this discussion is SA's misbehavior. The only thing that is relevant in this discussion is whether SA's misbehavior was in response to baiting, and whether that should be considered as a mitigating factor. And the only way we can determine that, is by looking at the actual edits that were made. Dlabtot (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

my unresearched observations of previous interactions are that the baiting is pretty limited. SA is much more likely to edit war (not always on the side of policy, but more often than not), which then baits his detractors into snippyness on talk pages and edit summaries, which then gets escalated by both SA and those he's editwarring with. It's very unfortunate. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Baiting is unfortunately becoming common on Wikipedia and is very rarely punished... in fact it seems to be wholly endorsed by some admins as a weapon to be used against editors they don't like. I would agree that action needs to be taken against baiters. As far as claiming that being baited is no excuse, I think any regulation is based upon good faith realistic interpretation of those rules. People actively harassing someone to find any slip up in civility at all is a remarkably hostile situation to find oneself in, and I think remaining cool under such situations is highly unrealistic. Any action taken against SA should be equally applied to others doing similar actions -- whether they be regular editors or admins -- or else you are letting people game the system through wikilawyering and rewarding a continuation of disruption and harassment instead of good faith attempts to work with each other and follow policy. DreamGuy (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you seeing baiting and not reporting it? Or is it just not being acted upon? Since you describe this as 'common', it should be easy for you to provide some diffs of this alleged behavior so that we can judge this based on facts, not rumor and anecdote. I look forward to seeing the examples. Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Baiting is an epidemic all across the encyclopedia, and it's certainly been reported in many cases (including several I know of on the ANI page), but it's typically not acted upon... certain admins seem to actively encourage the process as a way of finding an excuse to punish someone they don't like and which they can't find any valid reason to take any actions against. This has also been reported, and it is currently being discussed on RFC and elsewhere. At least one of the admins in question is someone who has a history of conflict with SA and is undergoing an RFC at this moment. DreamGuy (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

SA is the subject of plenty of baiting, particularly from sockpuppet and IP accounts (mostly proxies, several of which I have reported and gotten indefblocked). If there is some compelling reason besides your personal interest for finding a list of diffs, I'd be willing to do this. Antelan 15:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do provide evidence to support your assertions. If the misbehavior of SA is primarily directed at the perpetrators of the actions you describe, it certainly would have weight as a mitigating circumstance, even if not as an excuse. Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the interest, but to me that is not a strong enough reason for me to spend hours poring over diffs left by anons and sockpuppets, sorry. If you're interested, please feel free to do so yourself. You'll find plenty over the past 2 months. Antelan 15:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, I may start keeping a list here of all of the new baiting that shows up on my watchlist: Aug 06 2008. Antelan 21:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Science Apologist really the subject of baiting? Of course he is; I've seen it dozens of times, from editors in good standing, from anon IPs, and from banned editors using socks. Davkal was banned before I ever ventured into Wikipedia, and yet I've seen so many comments from Davkal socks that I recognize the twisted arguments and the taunting style on sight. Before I learned to recognize Davkal and to understand that it wasn't worth taking the time to respond to his provocations with thoughtfully crafted responses on the issues (since it's obvious that Davkal isn't interested in debating a question, only in provoking a response), I was baited by a Davkal sock for having the temerity to agree with Science Apologist about something. I can't point to the diffs because the comments were removed by an administrator as made by a banned user. The interesting thing is that SA's opponents kept reverting the comments back in after they were removed, suggesting that they approved of the baiting, but I think eventually the deletion was made to stick. I found the encounter so aversive that I never edited that page again (in other words the banned user was able to get his way in an argument even while banned) and soon after that I decided that editing Wikipedia wasn't worth the aggravation for me. Luckily for the encyclopedia, SA isn't so easily intimidated; at any rate this is the kind of thing he has to deal with, day in and day out. Even though I disagree with him on some things, and find him unecessarily combative sometimes (probably as a natural result of so often being the target of such baiting) it's my opinion that without his perseverance in the face of concerted opposition the encyclopedia would be much worse than it is. I just don't know where he finds the strength to keep on. Woonpton (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Shot info removed comment from banned user. making my comment below irrelevant. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the baiting. I'm seeing a bit of tenditions discussion from several editors, that's mostly just fine, and mostly working towards understanding and resolution of a question on sources. I'm also not seeing SA's alleged abuse of other editors in this instance. no comment as to the correctness of any party to that discussion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dakval socks that keep on popping up here are good evidence of baiting, harassment, whatever you want to call it. Of course, it's quite possible that SA is baited/harassed and he engages in unjustifiable conduct. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this baiting thing at all. Are we going to give SA extra latitude because he is an aggressive editor? IMO, the entire baiting thread implies that SA can't keep his temper and that therefore we should give him a more lenient treatment than other editors in the same situation. This is an argument you would use as an excuse for the behavior of a child. And by the way, if SA represents rationality, reason and the scientifc mainstream, would we not expect that to be reflected in a mature and balanced editing behaviour? MaxPont (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

More sock baiting on this page[47]. MaxPont, they are saying that he is defending those ideas on the articles, not that he is representing them. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

While the socks are tenditios, and unhelpful, edit warring with them doesn't help the encyclopedia. I mostly don't participate in the broad article areas that SA is involved in because the edit warring is disruptive to my participation. I mostly agree with SA's POV. If there were some way for SA to keep the edit warring out of his participation, I think other editors would be more willing to be involved. Another option (and one I've contemplated) is to develop some set responses (even written out) to esentially cut and past to respond to the tenditious arguementation. The challenge here is to actually read someones statements first, and I freely admit to glossing over quite a lot of talk page blather. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a good strategy is to dig down through all the layers of misdeed and start by sanctioning the initiator to make sure they don't set off further disruptions. If that does not resolve the problem of improper responses to improper behavior, then the next layer up can be sanctioned, and so on. We want to minimize the use of force while solving the problem as thoroughly as possible. In this case, the first thing to do is figure out who is violating core content policies and stop them. If there is residual disruption (not mere incivility), then additional sanctions can be employed. So, my tools are ready. Diffs please, who made the first bad edits in the current dispute? Jehochman ^Talk 16:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd hate to do the research and be told I'd researched the wrong thing: please define what you consider to be the locus of "the current dispute".
Kww (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like Water fluoridation opposition is the locus. However, if you find disruption going on elsewhere, you can report it to my talk page of WP:ANI if I appear to be missing. Jehochman ^Talk 16:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Questionable behaviour, in chronological order:

• [[48]]
• [[49]] interesting ... obvious vandalism, but the bulk of this change was retained
• Edit warring on external links
• This series of 16 edits seems pretty pointed.
• As does this one
• And this one
• With some help from ImperfectlyInformed

On that particular article, if a finger was to be pointed, mine would aim at Petergkeyes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), especially since he approaches SPA status. Nothing in his edit history but fluoride and cannabis, and the cannabis hasn't been dealt with in months.
Kww (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Defining "current dispute", the one about which this thread was originally opened can be interpreted to have started on 31 July when SA moved the page.[50] The preceeding edit was an Auto-Wiki browser copyedit. Before that, there was multi-party (>2) edit warring that ended on 25 July and began somewhere around 19 July. SA missed that edit war; indeed his only previous edits to thisarticle had been 7 June to add some trivial (in the IPC trivia sense) to the lead and then readd it when it was reverted.[51][52] I do think SA's page move was likely a response to a comment made on another page; likely this one at Talk:List of minority-opinion scientific theories. That page may give some directions to pursue further to attempt to define the beginning of the current dispute if you want to push it back further, but my quick read is it will quickly take you to other venues than that page. Thus, if you go that route, you will eventually conclude that the "current" dispute started a long time (multiple years and ArbComm cases) ago, the venues and parties have merely changed over time. So, what did you mean by "current dispute"? If page specific, it sure looks like SA was the first to edit disruptively. If the broad perspective, I gave up before trying to sort it out. GRBerry 17:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the simple definition will do. SA provoked the current situation with a disruptive page move. It seems that we have the discretionary power to ban SA from all pseudoscience type articles for a month or so. Perhaps that will get the message across, and meanwhile prevent further disruption. If POV pushers on the other side go hog wild while SA is away, we will give them a similar remedy. Does this make sense? What do you say, SA, does this seem fair, or do you have another idea? Jehochman ^Talk 17:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time seeing that move as disruptive.
Kww (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how my behavior there was "questionable". Just because Shot info says that fluorosis does not belong on a page about the opposition to water fluoridation does not make it so -- fluorosis is the most common problem associated with fluoride, affecting between 30 and 40% of people. Also, the diff which was vandalism was reverted by Dozenist immediately[53] SA's page move was disruptive because there was no content in the body of the article on conspiracy theory, and pretty much everyone agreed (exception of ScienceApologist) that the conspiracy theory dates back to the 50s and 60s, and doesn't motivate current opposition. II | (t - c) 21:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A simple question. Do you think you can continue editing the article productively if SA is still allowed to edit? Jehochman ^Talk 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That was my list, not Jehochman's, BTW. The "oral sex" part of the vandalism stayed out of the article, but the vandal's description of the study was still in the article much later.
Kww (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I can edit. We all get by dealing with trolls, even if the process is tedious and time-wasting. As GRBerry showed, SA has only made around 3 edits to this article, with long spaces in-between: 1) the addition of trivia to the lead, 2) the reversion when the trivia was taken out, and 3) blanking and retitling the page. Hopefully he won't even be back. Kww, I know it was Jehochman's list, and I answered your question as an aside. Looking closer, I see you're right about that revision, but it seems that sentence cited to "nofluoride.com" was not quite vandalism. Kinda strange to see someone doing obvious vandalism and somewhat constructive (questionable source and poor wording) work in the same edit, but apparently it happens. Anyway, as far as ScienceApologist, I agree that we need more people patrolling for questionable stuff. I don't know whether he should be banned from pseudoscience articles for a month, but SA's battleground, trollish behavior is not the right way to take on these things, and his analysis of questionable thus far leaves me questioning his ability to judge. II | (t - c) 22:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The page move

I'm of the opinion that this trainwreck of a conversation doesn't deserve my comment, but since Jehochman has asked me to reply specifically about what I think about his "remedy", I'll give it a shot.

All I'm trying to do is make this encyclopedia better, and the usual suspects are whining about an action that happened 10 days ago brought to the attention of this board by a cadre of editors who should have been banned a long time ago. Oh, and a particular administrator who loves to cherry-pick and editorialize diffs in order to demonstrate his hatred for me.

The claim: moving a page was disrupticve. The rebuttal: WP:BOLD, WP:BRD. For fucksake, the page was moved back, and I didn't force the issue at all. If you think moving a page is disruptive, then you obviously don't think editors should ever be bold. My move log indicates dozens of successful bold moves including a number of fringe topics moved to pages that are currently named "conspiracy theories" (Apollo moon landing hoax conspiracy theories for example). In this case, there is still outlying discussion as to whether this issue is wholly conspiracy theory or not. To ban me from all pseudoscience-related pages (whatever that's supposed to mean) for moving a page about water fluoridation opposition to a new location called water fluoridation conspiracy theory would be really bizarre and almost comical.

One thing we might ask is why the administrators think I was being disruptive. Certainly there are users who complained very loudly about the move with varying degrees of evinced intelligence. But does that indicate disruption? When a user who is single-purposely dedicated to destroying Wikipedia's weighting of fringe theories, should we be worried when they complain loudly about not being able to get their agenda accomplished? Should we allow them the latitude to call the people they hate :trolls" (as is seen directly above) while extolling the virtues of civility and no personal attacks to those on the other side?

I submit that such users would be better served with time-off then myself, especially in light of the fact that Dana Ullman was banned from homeopathy related pages. Precedent by arbcomm is that fringe-POV-pushers are to be banned from articles. That's the real precedent here. It is very interesting that no administrator wants to ban the problematic users who defiantly act contrary to WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Is it because they're afraid? Yes. There are, in fact, administrators who are active in this very thread who have e-mailed me to say, essentially, that I'm right but there is nothing that can be done because they are too scared to act lest certain other administrators declare massive-multiplayer war.

POV-pushing fringe proponets should be told to move along as their contributions to Wikipedia only serve to cause problems for the project. Ask yourself the question, are the Wikipedia articles I've been involved with in better shape now than they were when I started? Do the experiment and see. I've yet to see anyone point out a case where an article degraded because I became involved in it. In contrast, I can point to articles where my opponents have made articles much worse. So, what's it going to be? Are you going to say that people who make articles better are the ones that should be banned first?

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

From the above it is obvious that ScienceApologist has no intention whatsoever to work towards a consensus or change his behaviour. Maybe you can't expect mature and balanced editing by proponents of fringe and bisaree POVs, but from a self-declared defender of "scientific mainstream" you would expect more maturity - not less. Representing "Science" is not a carte blanche for a systematic gaming of the system and disruption of WP. The next step should be a new ArbCom with the purpose of completely banning ScienceApologist. MaxPont (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, SA is not going to change. I find it astonishing that an editor with a Block log like this [54], has not felt the wroth of admin? Vufors (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

SA MO/System is to WP:POVPUSH:, he bates by running down editors - for example WP:FTN: then move to WP:POVN: [55] Atropa belladonna - see the bates;

• 1st - 1 August 2008 [56]
• 2nd - 6 August 2008 [57]
• 3rd - 6 August 2008 [58]

Another SA MO/System is the Mass Delete of sources. This sudden event bates the other editors into war, he then moves on.

• An example of this is an opening shot (first mass edit) on this given page, 6 June 2008 [59] --> RRR War --> Mediation [60] - Vufors (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • SA, how would you feel about working with a mentor? I have a particular editor in mind. Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • However, a reply... if not found in SA above post; "this trainwreck of a conversation doesn't deserve my comment" & "administrator who loves to cherry-pick" & "For fucksake" etc [61] it may reside where SA chastise administrator User talk:Shell Kinney on the 7 August 2008 [62] with this - "If an administrator isn't allowed to have a WP:CLUE, then the administrator should just butt out.". Yet, the silence is deafening? Vufors (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

User:AGK has generously offered his time to mentor User:ScienceApologist, who has agreed to mentorship. Hopefully this will lead to a long term improvement in the situation. I have asked SA to back away from all disputes and concentrate on article improvement. Jehochman ^Talk 07:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope it works. Close action? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Further complaints should be directed to the mentor first, before coming here. The mentor is an experienced ArbComm clerk. Jehochman ^Talk 16:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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.